Delhi District Court
State vs Umesh Kumar Yadav on 24 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.: 186/2014
PS.: Kotwali
u/S.: 395/412 IPC
State Vs. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.
(a) SC Case No. 28047/2016 (Old No.: 111/2014)
(b) CNR No. DLCT01-001903-2014
(c) Date of commission 01.03.2014 at around 11:40 p.m.,
of offence at Geeta Colony Flyover,
Yamuna Pushta, Delhi.
(d) Name of the Ct. Rajbeer Singh, No.
complainant 2548/PCR, PIS No. 28901863,
North Zone PCR, Model Town,
Delhi (at relevant point in time).
(e) Name of the accused a) Umesh Kumar Yadav, S/o. Mr.
persons, parentage Ram Narayan Yadav, R/o.
and residence Village & P.O. Malmal, PS.
Kalwal, Distt. Madhubani,
Bihar; presently at: C/o. Saroj
Yadav, Prem Nagar-III, Shani
Bazar Road, Nangloi,
Delhi-110086;
b) Pramod Kumar Yadav, S/o. Mr.
Rajdev Yadav, R/o. Village
Ghat Madiya, P.O. Madiya, PS.
Bash Patti, Distt. Madhubani,
Bihar; presently at: C/o. Mr.
Amar Nath, R/o Gali no. 13,
Military Road, Anand Parbat,
Delhi-110005;
c) Narender Kumar Yadav, S/o.
Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, R/o
Village Malmal, PO Madiya,
PS Bash Patti, Distt.
Madhubani, Bihar; presently at:
C/o. Mr. Vijay Thakur, Prem
Nagar-III, Gali No. 9, near
Shivam Public School, Kirari
Suleman Nagar, Nangloi,
Delhi-110086;
SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 1 of 68
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24
16:40:14 +0530
d) Raghu Nath Yadav @ Raghu,
S/o. Mr. Ramakant Yadav, R/o.
Village Loha Kapsiya, PO &
PS Arer, Distt. Madhubani,
Bihar; presently at: H. No.
49/36, Ranhola, Akash Vihar,
near Rathi Hospital, Najafgarh
Road, Delhi-110041;
e) Jitender @ Jitu, S/o. Mr. Raj
Dev Yadav, R/o. Village
Malmal, PS Kotwali, Distt.
Madhubani, Bihar. (since
deceased).
(f) Plea of the accused All the accused persons pleaded
persons 'not guilty'
(g) Final Order All the accused persons are
acquitted of the charges levelled
against them.
(h) Date of institution of 26.07.2014
case
(i) Date when judgment 06.06.2025
was reserved
(j) Date when judgment 24.09.2025
was pronounced
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION:
1. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 02.03.2014, information was received vide DD No. 3PP at around 12:05 a.m. inter alia to the effect that two persons were fleeing with one robbed rickshaw at Geeta Colony flyover, however, on seeing PCR van, one of the said persons fled from the spot, while the other person was apprehended and taken to Hospital. Correspondingly, it was informed that the rickshaw was lying at Rajghat flyover (गीता कालोनी flyover के उपर से 2 लडके थे एक आदमी का रिक्शा छीनकर भाग गये और PCR की गाडी को देखकर रिक्शा छोडकर भागने लगे जिसमें से एक भाग गया और एक मजरुब है जिसको लेकर PCR की गाडी Hospital ले जा रही है। रिक्शा राजघाट flyover के पास खडा है।). Consequently, upon SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 2 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:40:18 +0530 receipt of the said information, the concerned police officials , i.e., HC Pawan, No. 1476/N and Ct. Manoj, No. 2010/N reached at the spot, i.e., Geeta Colony Flyover Yamuna Pushta, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'spot'), however, no one was found present there. Thereafter, HC Pawan and Ct. Manoj, proceeded behind Rajghat Power House, near New Ring Road flyover, where one battery rickshaw was found (जो इसके बाद HC Pawan 1476/N मय हमराही Ct. राजघाट पावर हाऊस के पीछे नया रिंग रोड फ्लाई ओवर पर पहुँचा जहाँ पर एक बैटरी रिक्शा खडी मिली). Correspondingly, Ct. Mukesh, No. 10127/PCR was also found present at the said spot, who informed the said police officials that the PCR van had shifted the accused/apprehended person to LNJP Hospital (बैटरी रिक्शा के पास PCR का Ct. मुके श न० 10127/PCR खडा मिला जिसने बतलाया कि मजरूब को PCR की गाडी LNJP hospital ले गई है ). Ergo, HC Pawan and Ct. Manoj, proceeded to LNJP Hospital, where accused, namely, Umesh, S/o. Shri. Ram Narain Yadav, R/o. Village Malmal, Thana Kalnaai, District Madhubani, Bihar, was found under treatment. Further, Ct. Rajbeer, No. 2548/PCR, PCR, In-charge (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') was also found present in LNJP Hospital along with the accused and his/complainant's statement was recorded.
2. Markedly, under his statement, the complainant/Ct. Rajbeer inter alia asserted that on 01.03.2014, he was on duty as I/C Sugar-29 PCR Van, from 08:00 p.m. to 08:00 a.m. along with gunman Ct. Mukesh Meena and driver Ct. Raj Singh ( कल दिनांक 1/3/14 को मेरी duty रात 8 बजे से आज सुबह 8 बजे तक बतौर IVC Sugar-29 PCR Van पर थी। जो मेरे साथ बतौर गनमैन Ct. मुके श मीणा 10127/PCR व बतौर ड्राईवर Ct. राजसिंह न० 230/PGR की थी।). As per the complainant, from 11:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight, they were on patrolling duty, to check the street lights, at the passage from Hanuman Mandir, Yamuna SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 3 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:40:21 +0530 Bazaar to Geeta Colony flyover (रात को 11 बजे से 12 बजे तक हमारी duty हनुमान मन्दिर यमुना बाजार से गीता कॉलोनी फ्लाईओवर तक Street Light Check करने के लिए Patrolling Duty थी।). The complainant further proclaimed that while being so assigned and performing patrolling duty, at around 11:40 p.m., when they reached Geeta Colony flyover loop to return towards Hanuman mandir and they ascended the bridge, a TSR (three-seater autorickshaw) driver approached them from the side of Geeta Colony. Correspondingly, as per the complainant, the said TSR driver informed them that 4-5 boys had beaten up a battery rickshaw driver on the Geeta Colony bridge, snatched his battery rickshaw, and fled towards Rajghat along with the said rickshaw, while the TSR driver went towards Shanti Van (जो गस्त व चैकिं ग करते हु ये समय करीब 11.40 बजे रात जब हम वापिस हनुमान मन्दिर की तरफ आने के लिए गीता कॉलोनी फ्लाईओवर लुप पर चढकर पुल पर पहुँचे तो गीता कॉलोगों की तरफ से एक TSR चालक ने आकर बतलाया कि पीछे गीता कॉलोनी पुल पर 4-5 लडको ने बैटरी रिक्शा चालक के साथ मारपीट करके उसका बैटरी रिक्शा छिन लिया है व बैटरी रिक्शा को लेकर अभी- अभी राजघाट की तरफ नया रिंग रोड पर गये है और TSR चालक शान्तिवन की तरफ चला गया). Ct. Rajbeer further averred that due to paucity of time/in haste, they did not note down the number of said TSR, however, immediately proceeded in search of the said battery rickshaw, towards Rajghat. Pertinently, the complaint further chronicles that, when the said police officials reached near Rajghat Power House, while blaring the siren of their vehicle/PCR van, they noticed two persons in a battery rickshaw, ascending the flyover (जब हम राजघाट पावर हाऊस के पास सायरन बजाते हुए पहुँचे तो हमें एक बैटरी रिक्शा फ्लाई ओवर पर चढ़ते हुए दिखाई दिया और नज्दीक पहुँचे तो देखा की बैटरी रिक्शा में दो लोग हैं). As per the complainant, upon seeing them/PCR van, the said persons left the battery rickshaw on the flyover and tried to flee from the spot. However, it is proclaimed by the complainant that in the said process, one of the SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 4 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:40:25 +0530 said persons, collided with a TSR on the road and fell down ( जो इस दौरान बैटरी रिक्शा को उन्होंने विच सडक छोड दिया और भागनेलगे तो उनसे से एक लडका सड़क पर जा रहे TSR से टकरा गया और सडक पर गिर गया।). Correspondingly, as per the complainant, they could not note down any number of the said TSR and that one of the said two persons, was successful in fleeing from the spot. Nonetheless, considering that the aforesaid person, got injured, he was taken to LNJP Hospital in the PCR van, while gunman Ct. Mukesh was left at the spot, near the TSR (हम लोग TSR का कोई नम्बर नोट नहीं कर सके । दूसरा लडका गायब हो गया। इस लडके को TSR से टकराने से काफी चोट लगी है तो मैंने गन मैन को बैटरी रिक्शा के पास छोडकर तुरन्त इसको अपनी गाड़ी में बैठाया और LNJP अस्पताल के लिए चल दिया।).
3. Relevantly, Ct. Rajbeer further avowed under his complaint that while on the way to LNJP Hospital, the apprehended person, disclosed his identity/name as; Umesh, S/o. Sh. Ram Narayan Yadav, R/o. Village Malmal, Thana Kalnaai, District Madhubani, Bihar (one of the accused persons herein). Concomitantly, accused Umesh is further asserted to have revealed that he/Umesh along with other associates, namely, Raghu, Pramod, Jitendra @ Jitu and Narendra, left from Karol Bagh at around 10:00 p.m., in Raghu's TSR, with an intention to commit offence and in execution of the same, they hired a battery rickshaw near Lal Jain temple to go to Shamshan Ghat, CNG Pump (रास्ते में इसने अपना नाम पता उमेश S/० श्री राम नारायण यादव R/o. गाँव- मलमल थाना-कलनाई, जिला-मधुबनी बिहार, हाल पता डोरीवालान, करोलबाग, दिल्ली बतलाया और बतलाया कि वह अपने 4 अन्य साथियों रघु, प्रमोद, जितेन्द्र @ जितू व नरेन्द्र के साथ रात को करीब 10 बजे रघु के TSR में बैठकर करोल बाग से वारदात के लिए निकले थे जो लाल जैन मन्दिर के पास से उन्होंने एक बैटरी रिक्शा वाले को शमशान घाट CNG पम्प चलने के लिए किराये पर लिया). Significantly, as per the complainant, accused Umesh further disclosed that all of them, except Raghu, sat in the said battery rickshaw, while Raghu SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 5 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:40:29 +0530 followed them in another TSR, being driven by him/Raghu. Correspondingly, as per the said accused, when they reached on the bridge, near Geeta Colony, all of them/accused Umesh and his associates (including Ragu) beat up the driver of battery rickshaw and threw him out of his rickshaw. Thereafter, Jitendra @ Jitu and he/Umesh fled with the robbed battery rickshaw, which was being driven by Jitendra @ Jitu and he/Umesh was sitting in the rear seat, while, Pramod and Narendra fled from the spot along with Raghu in his/Raghu's TSR ( रघु को छोडकर सभी बैटरी रिक्शा में बैठ गये व रघु TSR लेकर उनके पीछे-पीछे चला जो गीता कॉलोनी के पास पुल के ऊपर उन्होंनेरधु के साथ मिलकर बैटरी रिक्शा चालक को मारपीटकर रिक्शा से उतार दिया जो वह और जितेन्द्र @ जितु लुटे हुए बैटरी रिक्शा को लेकर भाग लिए बैटरी रिक्शा को जितेन्द्र @ जीतु चला रहा था और मैं पीछे बैठा था, प्रमोद और नरेन्द्र, रघु के साथ रघु के TSR में बैठकर मौका से भाग गये). The accused is further asserted to have disclosed that on seeing the police vehicle/PCR van chasing them near Rajghat Power House, they got scared and left the battery rickshaw on the road and tried to flee from the spot, however, he/Umesh collided with a TSR, plying on the road and got injured, though, Jitendra @ Jitu was successful in fleeing from the said spot (जो राजघाट पावर हाऊस के पास, पुलिस का गाडी को पीछा करते हुए देखकर वे लोग घबरा गये और बैटरी रिक्शा को सडक पर ही छोडकर दोनों पकडे जानेसे बचनेके लिए भाग लिए। जो वह भागते हुए सडक पर जा रहे TSR से टकरा कर घायल हो गया। जबकी जितेन्द्र @ जीतु मौके से भाग गया). Ct. Rajbeer further proclaimed under his complaint that the accused, namely, Umesh was got admitted in LNJP Hospital vide MLC No. 000597 and while returning to the Hospital from the spot, he/the complainant, informed the PCR control room about the incident/same. REGISTRATION OF FIR AND INVESTIGATION:
4. Notably, under the aforenoted facts and circumstances as well as on the basis of the complainant's complaint, the concerned police official/HC Pawan prepared a SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 6 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:40:32 +0530 tehrir and directed Ct. Manoj to have the same taken to the police station for the registration of the FIR. Consequently, the present FIR was registered at PS Kotwali on 02.03.2014 for the offences under Section 395/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), which was marked to the concerned IO/SI Amit Kumar and the investigation ensued. In the meanwhile, IO/SI Amit Kumar is proclaimed to have reached LNJP Hospital, where one of the accused, Umesh Kumar was admitted. Consequently, SI Amit Kumar interrogated the accused Umesh Kumar Yadav in LNJP Hospital, who disclosed/reiterated about the incidents, including the particulars of his associates as well as his role in the alleged offence. Markedly, under his said disclosure, accused Umesh inter alia disclosed that his associates, namely, Raghu, Pramod, Jitendra @ Jitu and Narendra, were all residents of Madhubani, Bihar and that they were residing in a tenanted premise at Karol Bagh, Delhi, at the relevant point in time.
5. Consequently, IO/SI Amit left HC Pawan in the Hospital for the supervision of accused Umesh, while, he/IO proceeded to the flyover behind Rajghat Power Station, where Ct. Mukesh of PCR Van Sugar-29 is asserted to be found present along with the robbed battery rickshaw (SI Amit साहब ने बाद दरियाफ्त HC पवन को उमेश की निगरानी में LNJPN Hospital छौडा, राजघाट पावर स्टेशन के पीछे Flyover पर पहुंच कर PCR Van Sugar-29 का Ct. मुके श 10127/PCR लूटे हुए Battery Rickshaw के साथ मौजूद था). Concomitantly, search of co- accused, namely, Jitender @ Jitu was carried out, whereupon it was determined on a preliminary enquiry that accused, Jitender @ Jeetu had jumped from the flyover and was shifted to Hospital by the PCR vehicle, as he was injured ( उमेश द्वारा बताये गये साधी जितेन्द्र जितू के बारे में Flyover पास तलाश व पुछताछ की जोकी सरसरी SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 7 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:40:36 +0530 दरियाफ्त पर Flyover के उपर से नीचे कू द गया था ले चोट लगने से Injured को PCR किसी Hospital ले गई थी।). Thereupon, the IO returned to the Hospital, where he met with ASI Rakesh Tyagi, PS IP Estate, who produced MLC of one 'unknown person' and the IO was informed that accused, Umesh Kumar had identified the said injured 'unknown' person as one of his associates, namely, Jitender @ Jitu (SI साहब ने LINJPN Hospital पहुँचे तो ASI Rakesh Tyagi PS IP Estate साहब ने SI साहब को MLC Unknown पेश की व बताया कि Umesh Kr. जो Hospital मे जेरे ईलाज है ने इस injured की शनाख्त जितेन्द्र @ जितू जो लूट में शामिल था, के तौर पर की है). However, the IO was further apprised that the said person/accused Jitender @ Jitu, was declared unfit for statement by the concerned Doctor and that he was being admitted in ICU, at that point in time ( जितेन्द्र का जो unfit for statement था तथा Dr. साहब ने बताया कि इसे ICU में Admit किया जा रहा है।). Simultaneously, the robbed battery rickshaw, which was produced by Ct. Mukesh, bearing chassis number: 13010149, handle no.: YY-130617274, and with words, 'Sarthi' and Nos. 8470049100200 and 8470049100300, written on its rear/back side, was taken into police possession vide seizure memo (PCR Ct. मुके श द्वारा लूटे गये Rickshaw Battery Chassis No. 13010149 Handle No. YY-130617274, व Back Side मे Sarthi व No. 8470049100200 व 8470049100300 लिखा हुआ है पेश शुदा को बरुए फर्द कब्जा पुलिस में लिया।). SI Amit along with the staff as well as accused Umesh Kumar and the aforenoted battery rickshaw went to PP Red Fort, where the witness Anup Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'victim') identified the said battery rickshaw and got recorded his statement.
6. Relevantly, in his statement, the victim, Anup Kumar inter alia asserted that on 01.03.2014, while he was waiting for a passenger at Lal Jain Temple with his battery rickshaw at around 11:30 p.m., four boys approached to him and SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 8 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:40:40 +0530 sat in his rickshaw after fixing the fare for Rs.50/-, proceeded towards Gandhi Nagar (1/3/14 को मैं अपने Battery Rickshaw के साथ लाल जैन मन्दिर पर सवारी की इंतजार में था कि करीब 11/30 बजे रात मेरे पास 4 लडके आये और 50 रुपये में किराया तय करके गाँधीनगर को उसकी रिक्शा में बैठकर चल दिये।). It was further proclaimed by the victim that he proceeded on his rickshaw across the iron bridge and reached near Gandhi Nagar Shamshan Ghat (cremation ground), where one of the said boys was found talking to someone on his phone, asking such person to come to Geeta Colony Flyover (मैं रिक्शा लेकर लोहे के पुल से होते हुए गाँधी नगर शमशान घाट पहुंचा जहाँ पर एक लड़के ने अपने फोन से किसी से बात कर गीता Colony Flyover आने को कहा।). Correspondingly, the victim asserted that at Geela Colony Flyover, the said boys asked him to stop the battery Rickshaw and when he stopped his rickshaw, he noted that another autorickshaw had also reached there and stopped there, whereupon, all the said four boys started kicking and punching him (गीता कालोनी Flyover पर उन लड़को ने Battery Rickshaw रोकने को कहा जब रिक्शा रोका तो एक Auto भी वहाँ आकर रुक गया जो उन चारो लडको ने मुझे लात घुसे मारने शुरु कर दिये). Concomitantly, as per the victim, two of the said boys took the keys of his rickshaw and fled from the spot along with his rickshaw, towards Raj Ghat, while the other two boys fled in the auto rickshaw, that had approached at the spot (2 लडको ने मेरी रिक्शा का चाबी ले लिया तथा उसका रिक्शा लेकर राजघाट की तरफ भाग गये बाकि दोनों लड़के पीछे से आये Auto Rickshaw मे बैठकर भाग गये।). Further, as per the victim, he went to his home and then, reached at Lal Qila Chowki with his documents to lodge a complaint. Consequently, during the ensuing investigation, accused Umesh Kumar was arrested on 02.03.2014. Further, IO/SI Amit also took into possession, photocopy of the bill(s)/invoice(s) of the battery rickshaw bearing No. 393, dated 22.10.2013, issued by Sri. Sai Som & SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 9 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:40:44 +0530 Rickshaw Co., 487/99E, Industrial Area, Matke Wali Gali, National Market, Peeragarhi, Delhi-110087, on which Electric Rickshaw Chasis No. 13010149, Motor No. 1308009, Grand Total Rs. 47,813/-, etc., were inscribed/written, vide seizure memo.
7. Further, during the ongoing investigation, accused persons/co-accused persons, namely, Narender Kumar Yadav, Parmod Kumar Yadav and Raghunath Yadav (hereinafter accused namely, Umesh Kumar, Narender Kumar Yadav, Parmod Kumar Yadav and Raghunath Yadav are all collectively referred to as the 'accused persons') were also arrested in the case from Doriwalan Gali behind Siddhipura Chowki on 02.03.2014, after their due identification (दिनांक 2/3/14 को ही SI साहब ने Accused Narender Kumar Yadav, Parmod Kumar Yadav and Raghunath yadav को बाद शनाख्त Doriwalan Gali Behind सिद्वीपुरा चौकी मिलने पर शामिल तफ्तीश करके मुकदमा हजा में गिरफ्तार कर लिया). Concomitantly, accused Raghunath Yadav is stated to have got recovered an auto rickshaw bearing registration No. DL1-RH-1602, from Doriwalan, behind Siddhipura Chowki, Karol Bagh, Delhi, which was taken into possession by the police, which was deployed in the incident by the accused persons ( रघुनाथ ने सिद्दिपुरा चौकी के पीछे डोरीवालान K. Bagh में गली मे खडे एक Auto Rickshaw No DL 1 RH 1602 को पेश किया। अनूप सिंह की शनाख्त पर बरुये फर्द कब्जा में ले लिखा जिसको रघुनाथ ने लूट की वारदात के लिए प्रमोद नरेन्द्र, जितेन्द्र व उमेश का साथ दिया था।).
Correspondingly, medical examination of the victim/Anup Singh was got conducted vide MLC No. 603/14 from Aruna Asaf Ali/AAA Government Hospital, wherein the nature of his injuries were opined as 'simple-blunt' (अनूप सिंह का भी Medical कराया गया था MLC No. 603/14 AAA Govt. Hospital पर Dr. साहब ने Result Simple Blunt दिया है।). Thereafter, separate disclosure statements of arrested SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 10 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:40:48 +0530 accused persons were recorded as well as pointing out memo(s), prepared, besides the accused persons are asserted to have been duly identified by the victim/Anup Singh. Notably, during the ensuing investigation, it was determined by the concerned IO that accused, namely, Jitender @ Jitu, left for heavenly abode in LNJP Hospital on 05.03.2014, vide DD No. 22, PP Red Fort, upon which SI Amit Kumar got conducted, the post mortem of the deceased and the body was thereafter, handed over to his relatives (मजरुब जितेन्द्र कु मार की LNJPN Hospital में मौत होने की इतला Vide DD No. 22 PP Red Fort 5/3/14 को मिलने पर SI Amit Kumar साहब ने बाद शनाख्त जितेन्द्र @ जितू S/o राजदेव यादव R/o Vill. Malmal थाना कलवाही जिला मधुबनी बिहार हाल पता H. No. 11290, डोरीवालान मनकपुरा, दिल्ली का बाद कराकर Post Mortem लाश हवाले वारिशान कर दी थी।). Subsequently, report/postmortem report No. 184/2014 of the deceased/accused, Jitender @ Jitu was received, where the cause of his death was inter alia opined as, "... cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force trauma to head all the injuries are ante mortem in nature with being about 3 days old in duration and are possible in fall from height...". Correspondingly, documents relating to the ownership of the robbed rickshaw as well as of the autorickshaw, recovered at the instance of the accused, were collected. FILING OF CHARGESHEET AND COMMITTAL:
8. Markedly, upon conclusion of aforenoted investigation in the instant case, chargesheet was filed by the concerned IO before Ld. MM-08, Central, Tis Hazari Courts against accused persons, namely, Umesh Kumar Yadav, Pramod Kumar Yadav, Narender Kumar Yadav, Raghu Nath Yadav and co-accused, namely, Jitender @ Jitu (under column no. 12; as aforenoted, since left for heavenly abode on 05.03.2014) under Sections 395/412 IPC on 31.05.2014. Subsequently, cognizance SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 11 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:40:52 +0530 of offence(s), as specified under the chargesheet was taken by Ld. MM-08, Central, Tis Hazari Courts on 25.06.2014. Correspondingly, upon conclusion/compliance of the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., Ld. MM-08 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts vide order dated 23.07.2014, passed an order of committal of the present case before the Ld. Predecessor Judge, routed via Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts. CHARGE FRAMING:
9. Relevantly, upon the matter being so listed before the Ld. Predecessor Judge and on arguments on charge, having been addressed by/on behalf of the accused persons as well as by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Predecessor Judge directed framing of charges under Sections 395/34 IPC against the accused persons vide order dated 22.08.2014. Notably, the relevant extract(s) of the said order of charge is reproduced, as under;
"...Arguments on the point of charge heard at length. I have gone through the file including various documents and statement of witnesses. From the material on record, a prima facie case u/S. 395/34 IPC is made out. Charge has been framed accordingly, to which accused persons plead not guilty and claim trial.
Renotify for prosecution evidence on ..."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Further, it is apposite to reproduce the charges, as framed by the Ld. Predecessor Judge, against the accused persons on 22.08.2014, pursuant to the aforesaid order, as under;
"...I, ***, Addl. Sessions Judge-05(Central), Delhi do hereby charge you (1) Umesh Kr. Yadav s/o Ram Narayan Yadav (2) Pramod Kr. Yadav s/o Rajdev Yadav (3) Narender Kr. Yadav s/o Sita Ram Yadav and (4) Raghu Nath Yadav @ Raghu s/o Ramakant Yadav as follows:
That on 1.3.2014 at about 11.40 PM at Geeta Colony Flyover Yamuna Pushta, Delhi within the SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 12 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:40:57 +0530 jurisdiction of PS Kotwali, all of you along with your co-accused Jitender @ Jitu (since expired) in furtherance of your common intention committed dacoity of E-rickshaw (battery rickhsaw) from the person of Anup Kumar and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Sec. 395/34 IPC and within the cognizance of this court. And I hereby direct that you all be tried by this Court for the above charge..."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Relevantly, the upon the aforesaid charges having been read out to the accused persons in vernacular language (simple Hindi), they all pleaded, not guilty and claimed trial, leading to the initiation of evidence on behalf of the prosecution/prosecution evidence/PE.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
12. Notably, during the course of proceedings, prosecution examined 24 (twenty four) witnesses/prosecution witnesses, who deposed in their respective testimonies as under; 12.1. PW-1/Anoop Kumar deposed that on 01.03.2014, he was present in front of Lal Jain Mandir, Chandani Chowk and, waiting for passengers. Further, as per PW-1, at around 11:00 p.m., four persons approached him and hired his battery rikshaw for Shastri Park. Consequently, PW-1 proclaimed that he proceeded towards Shastri Park with the said four passengers via iron bridge and in the meanwhile, one of the said persons, received a call on his mobile phone. Correspondingly, as per PW-1, the said person, handed over his mobile phone to him/PW-1 and the caller told PW-1 to reach at Geeta Colony flyover. Further, as per PW-1, when he reached at Geeta Colony flyover, the said four persons told him/PW-1 that one of them was about to vomit and they asked PW-1 to station his/PW-1's rikshaw at the side of the road/flyover. PW-1 further avowed that SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 13 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:41:00 +0530 in the meanwhile, one TSR came from behind and stopped in front of his/PW-1's battery rikshaw and thereafter, the driver of the said TSR took out the key(s) of his/PW-1's battery rikshaw. As per PW-1, he asked the said person to hand over his keys, however, when he did not comply, a scuffle ensued between him/PW-1 and the said driver of auto rikshaw. PW-1 further deposed that, upon this, the driver of the said TSR exhorted other persons to beat me. Consequently, the TSR driver and all the aforenoted four passengers started giving beatings to him/PW-1 with kicks and fists-blows, leading to him/PW-1 falling down. It is further PW-1's case that in the meanwhile, one other TSR reached at the spot, however, after seeing him/PW-1 being beaten, the said driver/TSR left the spot out of fear. Concomitantly, PW-1 asserted that the aforenoted TSR driver handed over the keys of his/PW-1's battery rikshaw to two persons out of the aforenoted four persons/passengers and both, the said persons, left the spot with PW-1's battery rikshaw, while the other two persons left the spot on the said TSR. Thereafter, as per PW-1, he made efforts to stop the vehicles, which were plying on flyover for his/PW-1's help, however, to no avail. In fact, it was only after 10-15 minutes, one 'Champion' vehicle reached at the spot and he/PW-1 made request from the driver of the said vehicle for help. Consequently, PW-1 along with the said driver of the said 'Champion' vehicle proceeded towards the said fiver persons, who fled from the spot with his/PW-1's battery rikshaw, however, all in vain. Thereafter, upon PW-1's request, the said 'Champion' vehicle's driver dropped PW-1 at Jain Mandir Chandani Chowk. Notably, as per PW-1, he made a call at his house from the mobile phone of some passers-by, whereupon, his/PW-1's sons came at Jain Mandir, Chandani SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 14 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:41:04 +0530 Chowk and took him to his home as he was shocked, frightened and nervous. As per PW-1, he told his sons that his robbed battery rikshaw was taken towards Geeta Colony side by the robbers. Thereafter, as per PW-1, his sons called their friends and they went to Geeta Colony side, however, upon their return PW-1 was informed that all their efforts to trace the battery rikshaw were in vain. As per PW-1, thereafter, he remained in his house. It was further deposed by PW-1 that on 02.03.2014, his son received a call on his mobile phone from the police post Lal Qila and it was informed that his/PW-1's battery rikshaw had been recovered. Consequently, as per PW-1, he was called at Hauz Qazi chowk with one Head Constable, who was sent to PW-1's house from PP Lal Qila. Ergo, PW-1 asserted that in the morning of 02.03.2014 after receiving the telephonic call, he became nervous and frightened, due to which, he/PW-1 went to his friend's house to consume liquor to reduce my nervousness. After that, he/PW-1 returned to his house and his/PW-1's son as well as the Head Constable took him/PW-1 to Hauz Qazi Chowk from where, he/PW-1 was taken to PP Lal Quila. Thereafter, as per PW-1, the police official started the proceedings and at that time, there was one person, in police custody and whose leg was fractured, who was identified by PW-1 as accused, Narendera Kumar Yadav. After some time, as per PW-1, police also brought three more persons and he/PW-1 was asked by the police whether he could identify those robbers. Consequently, as per PW-1, on seeing the said three persons, he/PW-1 identified them as the same persons, who had robbed his/PW-1's battery rikshaw. Pertinently, during the course of his deposition, PW-1 identified accused Raghu Nath Yadav in Court, as the same person, who reached the spot of incident in TSR, from behind and took out the SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 15 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:41:08 +0530 keys from the ignition of PW-1's battery rikshaw. Correspondingly, PW-1 also identified accused persons, namely, Pramod Kumar Yadav and Umesh Kumar Yadav, as the same persons who robbed PW-1's battery rikshaw along with other co- accused and left the spot with his/PW-1's battery rikshaw, and left the spot in the TSR. Pertinently, PW-1 further asserted that the police conducted their proceedings as well as recorded his/PW-1's statement. Correspondingly, PW-1 confirmed that the battery rikshaw was later on got released by him on superdari after furnishing superdaginama (Ex. PW1/C), which was produced and proved by PW-1 as the robbed battery rickshaw, as Ex. P1.
12.2. PW-2/Ct. Rajbir Singh deposed that on 01.03.2014, he was posted at North Zone, PCR at Sugar 29 I/C PCR Van, on duty from 08:00 p.m. to 08:00 a.m. and that their location was from Hanuman Mandir, Yamuna Bazar to Geeta Colony flyover.
As per PW-2, Ct. Mukesh Meena, gunman and the driver, namely, Ct. Raj Singh were also with him in the PCR. PW-2 further asserted that they were assigned duty to check street light of the said area from 11:00 p.m. to 12:00 night, and at around 11:40 p.m., when he?PW-2 reached at flyover loop of Geeta Colony, one TSR driver approached them and informed them that at the beginning of flyover heading towards Shanti Van from Geeta Colony, 4-5 (four-five) persons had snatched battery rikshaw from its driver after beatings him as well as that they proceeded towards Raj Ghat Power House, New Ring Road. As per PW-2, on receipt of said information from TSR driver, they proceeded towards Shanti Van. However, PW-2 proclaimed that the particulars of the said TSR of that of the said TSR driver were not noted, due to hurry. Correspondingly, PW-2 asserted SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 16 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:41:12 +0530 that even a wireless message could not be flashed to the Control Room as the net was found busy at that time. Nonetheless, as per PW-2, when they reached behind Power House, they found a battery rikshaw proceeding towards the fly over of Rajghat, in which, two boys were sitting and on seeing the PCR, both the said boys fled away from the spot, leaving the said rickshaw behind. It was further deposed by PW-2 that one of the said two boys, collided with a TSR and sustained injuries, while the other, managed to flee from the spot. It was further testified by PW-2 that the gunman was left at the spot to escort battery rikshaw, while the injured boy was taken to LNJP Hospital. Notably, as per PW-2, on the way to the Hospital, the said boy, disclosed his name as, Umesh Kumar, who was correctly identified by PW-2 in Court. Concomitantly, PW-2 deposed that accused, Umesh Kumar also disclosed the names of his other associates/accomplices, namely, Raghu, Jitender, Narender and Parmod, as well as their respective roles. It was further deposed by PW-2 that while taking the said accused to the Hospital, PCR was informed and HC Pawan from PP Lal Quila reached the spot, who recorded the statement of PW-2 as Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, as per PW-2, SI Amit Kumar also reached at the Hospital and he/PW-2 informed the entire incident, whereupon, they both, proceeded to the spot of recovery of battery rickshaw, where gunman Mukesh Meena was already present. PW-2 further deposed that on investigation it was disclosed by nearby scrap dealers that one person had also been taken to the Hospital by the PCR as he had fallen down from the flyover. Thereafter, PW-2 asserted, they reached at the spot from where battery rikshaw was snatched and efforts were made to search for the owner of battery rikshaw, however, in vain. Consequently, they returned to the SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 17 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:41:15 +0530 Hospital, where ASI Rakesh Tyagi met and informed them about the admission of one more injured in the Hospital. PW-2 further avowed that the Doctor informed that the said injured was 'not fit' for statement and they again reached at the place of recovery of rikshaw, which was taken into possession. As per PW-2, they, then reached at PP Red Fort with the rikshaw, where the owner of battery rikshaw, namely, Anoop Kumar was present and he identified his said rikshaw. Markedly, during his deposition, PW-2 further proclaimed that accused Umesh was also taken to PP Red Fort by SI Amit Kumar and Anoop Kumar identified him/accused Umesh, as the same person who had snatched his battery rikshaw. Correspondingly, as per PW-2, Anoop Kumar got his complaint recorded, whereupon, PW-2 was relieved from the spot. Relevantly, PW-2 identified the case property , i.e., battery rikshaw (Ex. P1) from its photographs Mark A1 to Mark A5.
12.3. PW-3/SI Rakesh Tyagi deposed that on 02.03.2014, he was posted at PS. IP Estate as ASI and on that day, on receipt of information from LNJP Hospital qua admission of two injured persons, he/PW-3, reached at the said Hospital and found that one Umesh Kumar and one unknown person/patient were admitted in the Hospital. Thereupon, PW-3 obtained the MLC of patient Umesh Kumar and that of unknown person. As per PW-3, though, Umesh was declared 'fit for statement', however, the said unknown injured/patient was declared, 'unfit for statement'.
Correspondingly, PW-3 asserted that it was revealed by injured Umesh Kumar that the name of the unknown patient/injured was Jitender who was his associate in looting battery rikshaw. Further, as per PW-3, Umesh also disclosed that while the battery rikshaw was got stopped by the police, Jitender fled from the SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 18 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:41:19 +0530 spot, after jumping out of the rikshaw and due to the same, he sustained injuries. It was further testified by PW-3 that in the meanwhile, SI Amit of PS. Kotwali reached at the Hospital and he/PW-3 handed over both the injured with their MLCs to SI Amit.
12.4. PW-4/SI Rishi Pal deposed that on 02.03.2014, on the instruction of SI Amit Kumar, he/PW-4 reached at Doriwalan from police post, where he/PW-4 was posted. Further, as per PW-4, on the asking of SI Amit, he took accused, Umesh Kumar, who was arrested by SI Amit Kumar to the residence of Ilaka Magistrate at Saket and thereafter took the said accused to the police station, where PW-4 put accused Umesh in lock-up. 12.5. PW-5/HC Pawan Kumar deposed that in the intervening night of 01/02.03.2014, he was posted as Head Constable at PS. Kotwali and on the said night, at around 12:05 a.m., on receipt of DD No. 3 PP Red Fort, he/PW-5 along with Ct. Manoj went to the spot, i.e., near Power House, ring road, Flyover, Geeta Colony where Ct. Mukesh of PCR was present and one e-rikshaw was also stationed there. As per PW-5, Ct.
Mukesh informed him that the PCR van had taken the injured to LNJP Hospital. Consequently, as per PW-5, he went to LNJP Hospital where PCR In-charge Ct. Rajbir met him/PW-5 and the injured Umesh was found admitted in the Hospital. Consequently, as per PW-5, he recorded the statement of Ct. Rajbir (Ex. PW2/A) and, informed the SHO about the contents thereof. Concomitantly, as per PW-5, he made an endorsement (Ex. PW5/A) on the said statement and got the case registered through Ct. Manoj. Further, as per PW-5, further investigation of the case was marked/assigned to SI Amit Kumar, who reached the Hospital. As per PW-5, ASI Rajesh Tyagi handed over two SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 19 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:41:23 +0530 MLCs, i.e., of Umesh and one unknown person to SI Amit Kumar. In the meantime, as per PW-5, Ct. Manoj returned to the Hospital and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to SI Amit. It was further deposed by PW-5 that SI Amit along with Umesh, Ct. Manoj and Ct. Rajbir, then, proceeded to the spot and after some time, SI Amit returned to the Hospital as well as brought the e-rikshaw. PW-5 further deposed that Umesh was discharged from the Hospital and them went with him/Umesh, to PP Red Fort, though, the unknown injured remained admitted in the Hospital in ICU. Correspondingly, as per PW-5, Anoop , i.e., the owner of e-rikshaw met them in the Police Post. As per PW-5, accused Umesh was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/B and his personal search was taken vide memo Ex. PW5/C. Further, as per PW-5, the IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Umesh (Ex. PW5/D). Concomitantly, as per PW-5, accused Umesh led them to Doriwalan, Karol Bagh in search of his associates and accused Narender, Pramod and Raghunath @ Raghu @ Ravi were apprehended at the instance of accused Umesh as well as arrested vide arrest memos; Ex. PW 5/E, Ex. PW5/F and Ex. PW5/G. PW-5 further correctly identified all the accused persons before the Court, as well as proved the personal search memo of accused persons, namely, Narender, Pramod and Raghunath @ Raghu @ Ravi as Ex. PW5/H, Ex. PW5/I and Ex. PW5/J as well as their respective disclosure statements as; Ex. PW5/K, Ex. PW5/L and Ex. PW5/M. It was further proclaimed by PW-5 that at the time of arrest of above said accused persons, ASI Rishipal was called at the spot and the accused Umesh was sent to court through ASI Rishipal, by the IO. However, as pe rPW-5, prior to that, accused Umesh got recovered one TSR vide seizure memo (Ex. PW5/N). Further, as per PW-5, accused SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 20 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:41:27 +0530 Narender, Pramod and Raghunath led them to the spot and pointed out the place of occurrence vide memos; Ex. PW5/O, Ex. PW5/P and Ex. PW5/Q. 12.6. PW-6/HC Attar Singh deposed regarding the registration of the instant FIR on 02.03.2014, on receipt of rukka from Ct. Manoj, sent by HC Pawan, at around 02:20 a.m. PW-6 further proved the copy of the FIR as Ex. PW6/A and also asserted that he/PW-6 made his endorsement on the rukka, as Ex.
PW6/B. PW-6 further avowed that the investigation of the present case was assigned to SI Amit Kumar as well as, proved the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Evidence Act') as Ex. PW6/C. 12.7. PW-7/Ct. Sunil Kumar deposed regarding the registration of DD No. 3PP Red Fort, regarding snatching of e- rickshaw and admission of injured in the Hospital at around 12:05 a.m. on 02.03.2014, while working as DD writer. PW-7 further proved the said DD entry as Ex. PW7/A. 12.8. PW-8/Ct. Manoj Kumar deposed that in the intervening night of 01/02.03.2014, he was posted as Constable at PS. Kotwali and on that day, he/PW-8 was on duty with HC Pawan. As per PW-8, a call was received by HC Pawan and thereafter, he/PW-8 along with HC Pawan went to Ring Road Near Power House, where Ct. Mukesh of PCR met them along with one e-rickshaw. PW-8 further proclaimed that Ct. Mukesh informed that one person had been injured and that he had been taken to Hospital by a PCR van. Consequently, PW-8 and HC Pawan reached LNJP Hospital, where Ct. Rajbir of PCR met them and produced the injured, who was admitted in the Hospital. HC Pawan, as per PW-8, recorded the statement of Ct.
SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 21 of 68
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24
16:41:34
+0530
Rajbir and made an endorsement thereupon, and sent him/PW-8 to the police station for the registration of FIR. Consequently, PW-8 got the instant FIR registered and thereafter, returned to the Hospital with original rukka and a copy of FIR, which was eventually handed over to SI Amit Kumar. Thereafter, as per PW-8, he along with SI Amit Kumar and Rajbir went to the spot near power house and the e-rickshaw was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/R. PW-8 further asserted that they again returned to the Hospital, and came to know that another person, concerned with the present case, has also been admitted in the Hospital and that he was unfit for statement at that point in time. It was further avowed by PW-8 that the person, who met them for the first time in the Hospital got discharged and they returned to the Police post. Concomitantly, PW-8 asserted that in the PP, one, Anoop Kumar met them and he informed the IO of the robbery of e-rickshaw as well as identified Umesh Kumar Yadav, as the person who was involved in the snatching of e-rickshaw. As per PW-8, the IO recorded the statement of Anoop Kumar and arrested accused Umesh Kumar Yadav vide memo Ex. PW5/B; conducted his personal search (Ex. PW5/C) and recorded his disclosure (Ex. PW5/D). Further, as per PW-8, in pursuance to the said disclosure statement, they along with accused Umesh Kumar went in search of his associates in the area of Doriwalan, Karol Bagh and during the search, three persons were found in a gali, who were apprehended at the instance of accused Umesh Kumar Yadav. PW-8 also deposed that on interrogation the names of the said persons were revealed as; Narender, Parmod and Raghunath @ Raghu. As per PW-8, in the meantime, SI Rishi Pal reached at the spot and that he/PW-8 was sent to court along with accused Umesh Kumar Yadav, SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 22 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:41:40 +0530 while, SI Rishi Pal proceeded to Saket Court. Pertinently, accused Umesh was correctly identified by PW-8, during the course of his deposition. Markedly, PW-8 further identified accused persons, namely, Narender, Pramod, and Raghunath as well as proved the respective arrest memos, personal search memos as well as disclosure statements of the said accused persons, upon Ld. Addl. PP, putting a leading question to PW-8. 12.9. PW-9/Sh. Ashwani Sehgal deposed that he was running a factory of e-rikshaw in Peeragarhi in the name and style; 'Sri Sai Som e-rikshaw Company'. PW-9 further deposed that one police official from PS. Kotwali showed a photocopy of one invoice (Ex. PW1/D2) to him/PW-9 and after seeing the same, he/PW-9 confirmed that the said e-rikshaw was sold from his shop to one Mr. Anoop Kumar for a sum of Rs. 47,813/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirteen only). Correspondingly, PW-9 proved the entry in register, regarding delivery of e-rikshaw on 20.10.2013 to Anoop Kumar as Ex. PW9/A(OSR).
12.10. PW-10/Dr. Rattan Singh deposed that on 05.03.2014, he conducted postmortem on the body of one Jitender @ Jeetu vide postmortem report; Ex. PW10/A, while being deputed as Junior Resident at MAMC. Further, PW-10 opined the cause of death of deceased, due to, "cranio-cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force trauma to head. All the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report were ante mortem and consistent with being about 3 days old in duration". As per PW-10, after postmortem, he handed over the inquest papers and blood on gauze of the deceased along with sample seal to the IO. PW-10 further proved the diagram of injuries found on the dead body of the deceased as Ex. PW10/B. SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 23 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:41:46 +0530 12.11. PW-11/Sh. Om Prakash, LDC, Transport Department, Burari produced the original file in respect of registration of vehicle No. DL-1RH-1602, as per which, the same was found registered in the name of Smt. Yashoda Devi. PW-11 further proved the copy of screen report as Ex. PW11/A(OSR). 12.12. PW-12/Dr. Surendra Kumar, Casualty Medical Officer, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital deposed that on 02.03.2014, at around 01:50 p.m., one Anup Kumar was brought to the casualty ward of said Hospital and that he/PW-12 examined the said patient vide MLC No. 603/14 (Ex. PW12/A). PW-12 asserted that as per his opinion, the nature of injury on the said person was 'simple'.
12.13. PW-13/Sh. Rajdev deposed that he identified the body of his son, namely, Jitender @ Jitu during the postmortem proceedings, who left for heavenly abode, while under treatment at LNJP Hospital. PW-13 further asserted that the IO recorded his statement in this regard as Ex. PW13/A and that after postmortem, dead body was received by them and cremated. 12.14. PW-14/W/Ct. Anu, on 05.03.2014, while she was posted as Constable at PP Red Fort, at around 12:00 noon, information regarding admission of one person in Hospital was received, which was recorded as DD No. 22PP. PW-14 further produced the original DD register and proved the Copy of said DD entry as Ex. PW14/A. 12.15. PW-15/Ms. Yashoda deposed that in the month of September, 2007, she purchased an auto-rickshaw, bearing registration number bearing; DL-1RH-1602. As per PW-15, the cost of said auto-rickshaw was paid by Manmohan @ Mohan, who was PW-15's sister's son, and that her/PW-15's identity was used for getting the auto-rickshaw registered with Transport SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 24 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:42:11 +0530 Authority. PW-15 further deposed that the said auto-rickshaw always remained in possession of Manmohan @ Mohan and that he used to ply the same.
12.16. PW-16/Sh. Manmohan @ Mohan deposed that in the year, 2007 he purchased an auto-rickshaw in the name of Smt. Yashoda Devi, who was PW-16's aunt/mausi, as PW-16 did not have any identity proof. Correspondingly, as per PW-16, he paid the amount of the auto-rickshaw, which was got financed through Bajaj Allianz. Further, as per PW-16, in the year 2013, he sold the said auto-rickshaw to accused Raghunath, who was correctly identified by PW-16 in Court, for a sum of Rs. 65,000/-
(Rupees Sixty Five Thousand only). As per PW-16, he had not signed any documents of transfer as only part payment of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) was made by Raghunath to PW-16. PW-16 further avowed that in the month of May, 2014, he came to know that accused Raghunath was arrested by police and the said auto-rickshaw had been seized. Correspondingly, as per PW-16, he had informed the police that in the intervening night of 01/02.03.2014, the said auto-rickshaw was not in his/PW-16's possession.
12.17. PW-17/Dr. Ozair, Senior Resident, Lok Nayak Hospital deposed that one unknown patient was under treatment in the Hospital since 02.03.2014 and that he/PW-17 had prepared the death summary (Ex. PW17/A) of the said patient. 12.18. PW-18/Ct. Reena deposed that in the intervening night of 01/02.03.2014, at around 11:55 p.m., an information regarding snatching of e-rickshaw by two persons at Geeta Colony flyover was received. Further, as per PW-18, the said information was recorded vide channel no. 123 and the same was flashed to command room for further transmission to concerned SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 25 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:42:16 +0530 police station. PW-18 further proved the copy of PCR call ( Ex. PW18/A).
12.19. PW-19/ASI Naresh produced and proved the duty roster (Ex. PW19/A) of PCR officers and deployment of vehicles of North Zone. PW-19 further deposed that as per record(s), on the intervening night of 01/02.03.2014 from 08:00 p.m. to 08:00 a.m. PCR van Sugar 29, bearing registration no. DL-1CP-7534 was deployed at electric cremation ground near transformer on bypass ring road and that Ct. Rajbir Singh was in-charge of the relevant shift. Further, PW-19 asserted that Ct. Mukesh was also accompanying Ct. Rajbir Singh at that point in time. 12.20. PW-20/HC Pradeep Bhardwaj deposed that on 02.03.2014, he was posted as MHC(M) CP in the PS Kotwali and on the said day, SI Amit deposited one red colour e-rickshaw having chassis No. 13010149 along with its four keys; one auto- rickshaw bearing registration no. DL-1RH-1602; and personal search articles of the accused persons, namely, Umesh Kumar Yadav, Narender Kumar Yadav, Raghunath Yadav and Pramod Kumar Yadav in malkhana vide entry at Sr. No. 5666/14 in Reg. No. 19. PW-20 further produced the original Reg. No. 19, containing entry at Sl. No. 5666/14, copy of which relevant page/entry was proved as Ex. PW20/A. PW-20 further deposed that till the case property remained with him in the malkhana, it remained intact and the same was not tampered with. 12.21. PW-21/Ram Pyare Pandey, Record Clerk, Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi, proved the signatures of Dr. Umer on MLC No. 597 (Ex. PW21/A) at point A. As per PW-21, he/PW-21 was working Lok Nayak Hospital since year 2003 and had even worked with Dr. Umer, Junior Resident. Correspondingly, PW-21 deposed that he could identify the SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 26 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:42:19 +0530 signature and handwriting of Dr. Umer as he had seen him write and sign, during the course of his employment. Needless to mention that as per PW-21, Dr. Umer had left the service of Lok Nayak Hospital at the time of his deposition and his address at that point in time was not known.
12.22. PW-22/Insp. Amit Kumar deposed that on 02.03.2014, he was posted as SI and working as In-charge, Police Post Red Fort, PS Kotwali, Delhi. Further, as per PW-22, on the said day, he received a call from SHO, PS Kotwali and, was assigned investigation of the present case. Consequently, as per PW-22, he went to LNJP Hospital, where HC Pawan and PCR staff Ct. Rajbir met him/PW-22 and he came to know that the accused, namely, Umesh Kumar Yadav was under treatment in the said Hospital. Further, as per PW-22, he interrogated the said accused and left HC Pawan with the accused, Umesh Kumar Yadav, while, PW-22 along with Ct. Rajbir went to Ring Road, behind Rajghat Power Station. As per PW-22, PCR staff/Ct.
Mukesh along with robbed e-rickshaw was found present there. It was further deposed by PW-22 that thereafter, he/PW-22 returned to LNJP Hospital, where ASI Rakesh from PS IP Estate met him and he handed over, two MLCs to PW-22, one of which was of the accused, Umesh Kumar Yadav and another was of unknown person. As per PW-22, the unknown injured person was declared 'unfit for statement' by the Doctor. PW-22 further avowed that Ct. Manoj reached at the Hospital and produced the copy of FIR as well as original tehrir. Thereafter, as per PW-22, he along with Ct. Manoj and HC Pawan went to Ring Road flyover near Rajghat Power Station, where PW-22 seized the e- rickshaw vide seizure memo (Ex. PW5/R). Further, as per PW-22, he recorded the statement of PCR staff, Ct. Mukesh and SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 27 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2025.09.24
16:42:25
+0530
thereafter, returned to NJP Hospital with the said e-rickshaw along with Ct. Manoj and HC Pawan. As per PW-22, accused, Umesh Kumar Yadav was discharged from the Hospital and he disclosed that the unknown injured under treatment in Hospital was his associate, namely, Jitender @ Jitu who along with him/Umesh and other accused persons had robbed the e- rickshaw. As per PW-22, since the injured, Jitender @ Jitu was still under treatment, they along with accused, Umesh and e- rickshaw went to police post Red Fort. Correspondingly, PW-22 deposed that the driver of the said e-rickshaw, namely, Anoop Kumar met him/PW-22 at police post Red Fort and apprised him/PW-22 of the entire incident, which was recorded as a statement. It was further proclaimed by PW-22 that Anoop Kumar identified the accused, Umesh Kumar Yadav as one of the five robbers who had robbed the said e-rickshaw. PW-22 further asserted that he arrested accused, Umesh Kumar Yadav vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/B, as well as conducted his personal search (vide Ex. PW5/C). PW-22 correctly identified accused Umesh Kumar Yadav in court and further asserted that one mobile phone was recovered during the personal search of the said accused. It was further testified by PW-22 that he interrogated the accused, Umesh Kumar Yadav and recorded his disclosure statement (Ex. PW5/D) and that the said accused, disclosed the name of his associates as; Parmod, Narender, Raghunath @ Raghu, all residents of a rented premises in Karol Bagh, and that Jitender @ Jitu, was under treatment in LNJP Hospital. Consequently, in the basis of information furnished by and at the instance of Umesh Kumar Yadav, accused persons, namely, Parmod, Narender and Raghunath @ Raghu were arrested, who were identified by Anoop Singh as the robbers.
SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 28 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:42:29 +0530
Pertinently, PW-22 further proved the arrest memos, disclosure statements and personal search memos of the said accused persons. It was further proclaimed by PW-22 that Anoop Singh identified the accused, namely, Jitender @ Jitu are one of the accused persons from one of the five photographs, seized from the possession of Raghunath @ Raghu vide seizure memo, Ex. PW22/A. PW-22 further asserted that the said photograph ( Ex. PW22/B) was pasted on a paper and he/PW-22 obtained signatures of the witnesses. It was further proclaimed by PW-22 that accused, Raghunath @ Raghu led them to an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. DL-1RH-1602, asserted to be used in robbery. PW-22 asserted that he seized the said auto-rickshaw vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/N; and also seized the copy of invoice of e-rickshaw vide seizure memo Ex. PW22/C. PW-22 further proved the copy of invoice of e-rickshaw, Ex. PW1/D2. As per PW-22, he called ASI Rishipal and handed over the custody of the accused, namely, Umesh Kumar Yadav to him for production of the said accused before the Court and they along with accused persons, Parmod, Narender and Raghunath @ Raghu went to the place of occurrence, where PW-22 prepared pointing out memos at the instance of the said accused persons. As per PW-22, he recorded statement of Anoop Singh and relieved him from investigation, besides, he/PW-22 deposited the case property and personal search articles of the accused persons in malkhana of PS Kotwali. Thereafter, on 05.03.2014, he/PW-22 received information from LNJP Hospital that the accused, namely, Jitender @ Jitu had left for heavenly abode, whereupon his postmortem examination was conducted and the dead body was handed over to Jitender's relatives. PW-22 further asserted that he recorded the statements of witnesses during investigation, SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 29 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:42:39 +0530 however, upon his transfer, handed over the case file to SI R.P. Singh for further investigation. Pertinently, PW-22 further proved five photographs of e-rickshaw, as; Mark A1 to Mark A5; as well as e-rickshaw (Ex. P-1), which were also identified by PW-22 during his deposition before Court. 12.23. PW-23/SI Devender Singh deposed that on 01.07.2022, he was posted as ASI at PS Kotwali and working as Duty Officer from 08:00 a.m. to 04:00 p.m. Further, as per PW-23, at around 12:10 p.m., on receipt of rukka from ASI Hari Chand, he got recorded, FIR No. 235/19. PW-23 further produced the original FIR register, copy of which was proved as Ex. PW23/A. PW-23 further deposed that the said FIR was typed by CIPA Operator on the computer installed in the police station on his/PW-23's dictation. Further, as per PW-23, after registration of FIR, copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to Ct. Giriraj for being delivered to IO ASI Hari Chand. 12.24. PW-24/Insp. Ramesh Prasad deposed that on 06.03.2014, he was posted as SI at PP Red Fort, PS Kotwali and working as In-charge of PP Red Fort. On that day, as per PW-24, further investigation of the present case was assigned to him and he observed that substantial investigation had already been conducted. Further, as per PW-24, he received the postmortem report and placed the same on file; verified the ownership of e- rickshaw of the complainant Anoop Singh and collected the copy of invoice of the said e-rickshaw. Correspondingly, as per PW-23, he served a notice (Ex. PW24/A) under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988/MV Act to the owner of TSR bearing registration No. DL-1RH-1602 and recorded the statements of witnesses during investigation. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court.
SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 30 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:42:44 +0530
12.25. Notably, all the aforenoted prosecution witnesses were thoroughly examined by/on behalf of the accused persons by their Ld. Counsel.
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED PERSONS:
13. Apposite to note here that upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons in terms of the provisions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein the accused persons denied their involvement in the present case and proclaimed that they have been falsely implicated in the present proceedings/case. Notably, the relevant extracts from accused, Umesh Kumar Yadav's statement dated 26.03.2025, recorded in terms of the provisions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., are reproduced as under;
"...Q. 8: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW-1/Anoop Kumar deposed that thereafter, police official started proceedings and at that time there was one person who was in their custody and whose leg was fractured. It is further in evidence that PW-1, identified/pointed out towards accused, Narender Kumar Yadav, in Court as the person, whom the police had apprehended and whose leg was fractured. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect.
*** *** *** Q. 17: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW-2/Ct. Rajbir Singh deposed that out of the aforesaid two boys, one boy collided with TSR and sustained injuries while other managed to flee from there. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, gunman was left there to escort battery rickshaw and the injured boy was taken to LNJP hospital. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, on the way, the said boy disclosed his name as Umesh Kumar, who was correctly identified by PW-2 before the Court. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is a matter of record.
Q. 18: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW-2/Ct. Rajbir Singh deposed that the aforesaid person/Umesh Kumar also disclosed that he along with his four other accomplices, namely, Raghu, Jitender, Narender and Parmod left their SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 31 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:42:52 +0530 homes from Karol Bagh on TSR to commit crime and that they had hired battery rickshaw from Jain Mandir, Chandani Chowk for CNG Pump, Shamshan Ghat. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, the said person also disclosed that all of them, except Raghu, boarded the battery rickshaw and that they snatched rickshaw at the flyover of Geeta Colony after giving beatings to the driver of battery rickshaw. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect.
*** *** *** Q. 75: Why was this case registered against you? Answer: It is a false case.
Q. 76: Why have the PWs deposed against you? Answer: They are interested witnesses. Q. 77: Do you want to lead any evidence in your defence?
Answer: No. Q. 78: Do you want to say anything else? Answer: I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant by the police officials. I have not done anything wrong. I have not committed the alleged offences."
(Emphasis supplied) 13.1. In so far as accused, Pramod Kumar Yadav is concerned, as aforenoted, the said accused also denied his involvement in the present case as well as affirmed about his false implication. Relevant extract of accused, accused, Pramod Kumar Yadav's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., dated 26.03.2025, is reproduced as under;
"...Q. 11: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW-1/Anoop Kumar during the course of proceedings before this Court, pointed out towards the accused Parmod Kumar Yadav and accused Umesh Kumar Yadav and stated that the said two persons were the same persons who robbed his/PW-1's battery rickshaw along with other co- accused and left the spot with his/PW-1's battery rickshaw and also left the spot in the TSR. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is a matter of record, however, the said witness has deposed falsely.
SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 32 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:42:56 +0530 *** *** ***
Q. 75: Why was this case registered against you? Answer: It is a false case.
Q. 76: Why have the PWs deposed against you? Answer: They are interested witnesses. Q. 77: Do you want to lead any evidence in your defence?
Answer: No. Q. 78: Do you want to say anything else?
Answer: I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant by the police officials. I have not done anything wrong. I have not committed the alleged offences."
(Emphasis supplied) 13.2. Correspondingly, under his statement dated 26.03.2025, recorded in terms of the provisions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Narender Kumar Yadav also denied his involvement in the incident in question as well as asserted regarding his false implication in the present case. Pertinent to reproduce the relevant extracts from the said statement of accused Narender Kumar Yadav, as under;
"...Q. 8: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW-1/Anoop Kumar deposed that thereafter, police official started proceedings and at that time there was one person who was in their custody and whose leg was fractured. It is further in evidence that PW-1, identified/pointed out towards accused, Narender Kumar Yadav, in Court as the person, whom the police had apprehended and whose leg was fractured. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect.
*** *** *** Q. 18: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW-2/Ct. Rajbir Singh deposed that the aforesaid person/Umesh Kumar also disclosed that he along with his four other accomplices, namely, Raghu, Jitender, Narender and Parmod left their homes from Karol Bagh on TSR to commit crime and that they had hired battery rickshaw from Jain Mandir, Chandani Chowk for CNG Pump, Shamshan Ghat. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, the SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 33 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:43:00 +0530 said person also disclosed that all of them, except Raghu, boarded the battery rickshaw and that they snatched rickshaw at the flyover of Geeta Colony after giving beatings to the driver of battery rickshaw. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect
*** *** ***
Q. 75: Why was this case registered against you? Answer: It is a false case.
Q. 76: Why have the PWs deposed against you? Answer: They are interested witnesses. Q. 77: Do you want to lead any evidence in your defence?
Answer: No. Q. 78: Do you want to say anything else?
Answer: I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant by the police officials. I have not done anything wrong. I have not committed the alleged offences."
(Emphasis supplied) 13.3. Similarly, accused, Raghu Nath Yadav, while denying the allegations against him inter alia asserted under his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., dated 26.03.2025, as under;
"...Q. 10: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW-1/Anoop Kumar during the course of proceedings before this Court pointed out towards accused Raghu Nath Yadav and stated that he was the same person who came in TSR from behind and took out keys from the ignition of PW-1's battery rickshaw. What do you have to say? Answer: It is a matter of record, however, the said witness has deposed falsely.
*** *** *** Q. 18: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW-2/Ct. Rajbir Singh deposed that the aforesaid person/Umesh Kumar also disclosed that he along with his four other accomplices, namely, Raghu, Jitender, Narender and Parmod left their homes from Karol Bagh on TSR to commit crime and that they had hired battery rickshaw from Jain Mandir, Chandani Chowk for CNG Pump, Shamshan Ghat. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, the said person also disclosed that all of them, except Raghu, boarded the battery rickshaw and that they SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 34 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:43:05 +0530 snatched rickshaw at the flyover of Geeta Colony after giving beatings to the driver of battery rickshaw. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect
*** *** ***
Q. 75: Why was this case registered against you? Answer: It is a false case.
Q. 76: Why have the PWs deposed against you? Answer: They are interested witnesses. Q. 77: Do you want to lead any evidence in your defence?
Answer: No. Q. 78: Do you want to say anything else? Answer: I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant by the police officials. I have not done anything wrong. I have not committed the alleged offences."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. As aforenoted, all the accused persons, in their respective statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., opted not to lead any evidence in support of their assertion, leading to the closure of defence evidence.
CONTENTIONS OF STATE:
15. Ld. Addl. PP for the State outrightly submitted that from the material placed on record and, in particular, from the testimony of PW-1, the role, complicity as well as active involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the offences alleged against them stands proved. As per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the victim/PW-1, in his testimony, has specifically deposed about the commission of incident by the accused persons, while acting in furtherance of their common intention and concert with each other, besides PW-1 duly identified all the accused persons during his deposition. Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that the accused persons namely, Umesh Kumar was apprehended soon after the incident, SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 35 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:43:09 +0530 while fleeing with vehicle in question, besides, co-accused persons were subsequently identified by the victim upon their apprehension by the police officials. Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that the apprehension of the accused persons is duly corroborated under the testimonies of various police officials/formal witnesses, who were a part of the raiding team as well as search and seizure proceedings. It was further contended by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that despite an extensive and thorough cross examination of the said witnesses/prosecution witnesses, the defence has not been able to rebut the sterling testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, clearly, indicating towards the only inference of guilt of the accused persons. Further, as per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the accused persons, despite being afforded an opportunity to lead evidence, deliberately opted not to belie the case of prosecution. Accordingly, Ld. Addl. PP for the State reiterated that from the material, evidence and documents, placed on record the charges levelled against the accused persons stand duly proved, making them liable for the offences/charges levelled against them. CONTENTIONS OF DEFENCE/ACCUSED PERSONS:
16. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that from the material placed on record, the ingredients of offence under Section 395/34 IPC are not made out against the accused persons in the instant case. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that there are material improvements, contradictions and variations in the statements of various prosecution witnesses, belying their allegations against the accused persons. Ld. Counsel further submitted that no Test Identification Parade/TIP proceedings were conducted in the instant case. As per the Ld. Counsel, admittedly, the accused SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 36 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:43:14 +0530 persons were not known to PW-1 prior to the alleged incident, therefore, their identification by PW-1 for the first time in the court is not admissible. Even otherwise, it was vehemently argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the investigation in the present case has not been properly conducted as neither any endeavour made to join independent witnesses in the alleged search and seizure proceedings, nor any attempts made to retrieve the CDRs and CCTV footage of the vicinity of the alleged place of occurrence. Concomitantly, as per the Ld. Counsel neither the identity of the TSR driver, who allegedly informed PW-2 of the incident or that of the Champion driver, who is asserted to have assisted PW-1 was determined by the concerned investigating officer, nor the said persons or even PW-1's son, joined in the investigation proceedings. Concomitantly, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the reasons of PW-1's reaching PP. Lal Quila are not forthcoming, anywhere from the record. Ld. Counsel further submitted that PW-1 has rendered himself completely unreliable in the instant case as neither the witness consistently deposed of the incident, nor had the conduct of PW-1 been such, so as to form the basis of conviction of the accused persons. As per the Ld. Counsel, admittedly, PW-1 was intoxicated when he had reached the police post and the reasons for same are not convincing, rather, create a doubt in the veracity of deposition of PW-1. It was further summitted that there are several inconsistencies, variations and material omissions in the version of various police officials, besides, as per the Ld. Counsel, prosecution has not been able to consistently prove the sequence of events, in the manner in which they are professed to have occurred. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing submissions, Ld. Counsel SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 37 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:43:20 +0530 submitted that considering the various lacunae in the case of the prosecution and material brought forth on record, the accused persons be permitted to benefit of doubt and be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. As per the Ld. Counsel, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons.
APPEARANCE:
17. The arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and that of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have been heard as well as the record(s), including the testimonies of various witnesses, document(s)/material/evidence placed on record (oral and documentary evidence) and written arguments/submissions on behalf of the accused persons, thoroughly perused. LEGAL PROVISIONS:
18. Before proceeding with the determination of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court deems it prudent to reproduce the relevant provisions under law/IPC as under;
"23. "Wrongful gain"- "Wrongful gain" is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled.
"Wrongful loss"- "Wrongful loss" is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.
Gaining wrongfully, losing wrongfully-A person is said to gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to lose wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when such person is wrongfully deprived of property.
24. "Dishonestly"-Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".
*** *** ***
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention-When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 38 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:43:25 +0530 intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
*** *** ***
39. "Voluntarily"-A person is said to cause an effect "voluntarily" when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.
*** *** ***
378. Theft-Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft...
*** *** ***
383. Extortion-Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".
*** *** ***
390. Robbery-In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery-Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery-Extortion is "robbery"
if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person, or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Explanation-The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
*** *** ***
391. Dacoity-When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 39 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:43:29 +0530 committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity".
*** *** ***
395. Punishment for dacoity-Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Notably, from a perusal of the aforesaid, it is outrightly observed that the provisions under Section 34 IPC recognize the principle of vicarious liability1 in criminal jurisprudence, attracting culpability against a person for an act/offence, not committed by him but by another person with whom he shared the common intention. It is trite law 2 that Section 34 IPC does not provide for a substantive offence, rather, envisages culpability on the part of an accused only upon the proof of two conditions, i.e., "the mental element or the intention to commit the criminal act conjointly with another or others; and the other is the actual participation in one form or the other in the commission of the crime." Quite evidently3, mere common intention on the part of any such accused, per se may not attract the provisions under Section 34 IPC, sans an action in furtherance thereof. Strikingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Naresh v. State of U.P., (2024) 1 SCC 443, while explicating the contours of the provisions under Section 34 IPC inter alia remarked as under;
"7. A reading of Section 34 IPC reveals that when a criminal act is done by several persons with a common intention each of the person is liable for that act as it has been done by him alone. Therefore, where participation of the accused in a crime is 1 Suresh v. State of U.P., (2001) 3 SCC 673.2
Virendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 407.3
Jasdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 545.
SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 40 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:43:33 +0530
proved and the common intention is also established, Section 34IPC would come into play. To attract Section 34IPC, it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or premeditated mind. The common intention can be formed even in the course of the incident i.e. during the occurrence of the crime.
*** *** ***
11. Assistance has been taken of para 26 of the decision of this Court in Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka [Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 7 SCC 521: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 192], which is reproduced herein below: (SCC p. 537) "26. Section 34 IPC makes a co-perpetrator, who had participated in the offence, equally liable on the principle of joint liability. For Section 34 to apply there should be common intention between the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design or prearranged plan. However, this does not mean that co-perpetrators should have engaged in any discussion, agreement or valuation. For Section 34 to apply, it is not necessary that the plan should be prearranged or hatched for a considerable time before the criminal act is performed. Common intention can be formed just a minute before the actual act happens. Common intention is necessarily a psychological fact as it requires prior meeting of minds. In such cases, direct evidence normally will not be available and in most cases, whether or not there exists a common intention has to be determined by drawing inference from the facts proved. This requires an inquiry into the antecedents, conduct of the co-participants or perpetrators at the time and after the occurrence.
The manner in which the accused arrived, mounted the attack, nature and type of injuries inflicted, the weapon used, conduct or acts of the co-assailants/perpetrators, object and purpose behind the occurrence or the attack, etc. are all relevant facts from which inference has to be drawn to arrive at a conclusion whether or not the ingredients of Section 34IPC are satisfied. We must remember that Section 34IPC comes into operation against the co-perpetrators because they have not committed the principal or main act, which is undertaken/performed or is attributed to the main culprit or perpetrator. Where an accused is the main or final perpetrator, resort to Section 34IPC is not necessary as the said perpetrator is himself individually liable for having caused the SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 41 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:43:37 +0530 injury/offence. A person is liable for his own acts. Section 34 or the principle of common intention is invoked to implicate and fasten joint liability on other co-participants."
12. A plain reading of the above paragraph of Krishnamurthy case [Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 7 SCC 521: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 192] reveals that for applying Section 34IPC there should be a common intention of all the co-accused persons which means community of purpose and common design. Common intention does not mean that the co-accused persons should have engaged in any discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence. Common intention is a psychological fact and it can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the incidence or as stated earlier even during the occurrence of the incidence."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. Markedly, from the above, it is noted that in the instances where the provisions under Section 34 IPC are proposed to be invoked by the prosecution against accused persons, it is not mandatory to demonstrate that there such persons engaged in any prior discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence. On the contrary, common intention may be formed at a spur of moment, even during the commission/occurrence of incident, which is to be discernible from the facts of circumstances of each case. Correspondingly, it is also a settled law that for proving formation of common intention by accused persons, direct evidence may seldomly be available, yet, in order to attract the provisions under Section 34 IPC, prosecution is under a bounden duty to prove that the participants had shared a common intention4. Reference, in regard the foregoing is further made to 4 Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Khalid B.A. v. State of Kerala, 2021 SCC Online Ker 11875 , in this regard, remarked; "72. It is settled law that the common intention or the intention of the individual concerned in furtherance of the common intention could be proved either from direct evidence or by inference from the acts or attending circumstances of the case and conduct of the parties. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances." (Emphasis supplied) SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 42Digitally of 68 signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:43:41 +0530 the decision in Virendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 407, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, elucidated as under;
"38. The vicarious or constructive liability under Section 34 IPC can arise only when two conditions stand fulfilled i.e. the mental element or the intention to commit the criminal act conjointly with another or others; and the other is the actual participation in one form or the other in the commission of the crime.
39. The common intention postulates the existence of a prearranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds. It is the intention to commit the crime and the accused can be convicted only if such an intention has been shared by all the accused. Such a common intention should be anterior in point of time to the commission of the crime, but may also develop on the spot when such a crime is committed . In most of the cases it is difficult to procure direct evidence of such intention. In most of the cases, it can be inferred from the acts or conduct of the accused and other relevant circumstances. Therefore, in inferring the common intention under Section 34 IPC, the evidence and documents on record acquire a great significance and they have to be very carefully scrutinised by the court. This is particularly important in cases where evidence regarding development of the common intention to commit the offence graver than the one originally designed, during execution of the original plan, should be clear and cogent.
40. The dominant feature of Section 34 is the element of intention and participation in action. This participation need not in all cases be by physical presence. Common intention implies acting in concert.
*** *** ***
42. Section 34 IPC does not create any distinct offence, but it lays down the principle of constructive liability. Section 34 IPC stipulates that the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention. In order to incur joint liability for an offence there must be a prearranged and premeditated concert between the accused persons for doing the act actually done, though there might not be long interval between the act and the premeditation and though the plan may be formed suddenly. In order that Section 34 IPC may apply, it is not necessary that the prosecution must prove that the act was done by a particular or a specified person. In fact, the section is intended to cover a case where a number of persons act together and on the facts of SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 43 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:43:45 +0530 the case it is not possible for the prosecution to prove as to which of the persons who acted together actually committed the crime. Little or no distinction exists between a charge for an offence under a particular section and a charge under that section read with Section 34."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. In so far as accountability under Section 390 IPC is concerned, this Court deems it pertinent at this stage to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC Online SC 951, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while considering the ingredients and scope of the provisions under Section 390 IPC noted as under;
"15. Theft amounts to 'robbery' if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Before theft can amount to 'robbery', the offender must have voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. The second necessary ingredient is that this must be in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. The third necessary ingredient is that the offender must voluntarily cause or attempt to cause to any person hurt etc., for that end, that is, in order to the committing of the theft or for the purpose of committing theft or for carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. It is not sufficient that in the transaction of committing theft, hurt, etc., had been caused. If hurt, etc., is caused at the time of the commission of the theft but for an object other than the one referred to in Section 390, IPC, theft would not amount to robbery. It is also not sufficient that hurt had been caused in the course of the same transaction as commission of the theft.
16. The three ingredients mentioned in Section 390, IPC, must always be satisfied before theft can amount to robbery, and this has been explained in SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 44 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:43:48 +0530 Bishambhar Nath v. Emperor, AIR 1941 Oudh 476, in the following words:
"The words "for that end" in sec. 390 clearly mean that the hurt caused by the offender must be with the express object of facilitating the committing of the theft, or must be caused while the offender is committing the theft or is carrying away or is attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft. It does not mean that the assault or the hurt must be caused in the same transaction or in the same circumstances."..."
(Emphasis supplied)
22. Conspicuously, in order to convict a person under Section 395 IPC, ingredients of Section 390 IPC must be established, inert alia to the effect that the offender should voluntarily cause or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restrain, or put such persons in fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restrain, in order to commit or while committing theft or extortion, as the case may be. In fact, it is trite law5 that the offence of dacoity is not an offence, "separate from robbery; it is just an offence of robbery committed by five or more persons. The only difference between Section 390 and Section 391 is that of the number of accused required to constitute the two offences.". Correspondingly, this conscious of the law that in order to attract culpability under Section 395 IPC, mere attempt to commit robbery by five or more persons is sufficient. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Behari v. State of U.P., 1956 SCC Online SC 30, wherein the Hon'ble Court enunciated, as under;
"5. The essential ingredients of the offence of dacoity, therefore, are that five or more persons should be concerned in the commission of the offence and they should either commit or attempt to commit a robbery.5
Bhagwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Crl. Appeal Nos. 863, 864 Of 2001, dated 02.06.2023.
SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 45 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.09.24 16:43:53 +0530
6. There was in the circumstances of the present case, an attempt to commit robbery by the appellant and his companions though in fact no robbery was committed by reason of the hue and cry raised by Mendai and Ganga. The dacoits took to their heels without collecting any booty when they found that the villagers from Banni Purwa and Banni came immediately to the aid of Mendai and Ganga. The offence of dacoity was, therefore, completed the moment they took to their heels without any booty. There was an attempt to commit a robbery though it was foiled as stated above; nonetheless the dacoits would have been guilty and could have been punished for the offence under Section 395, Penal Code, 1860 which prescribes the punishment for dacoity...."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. Here, it is further pertinent to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Bhalkya Ambrushi Kale v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 SCC Online Bom 1648, wherein the Hon'ble High Court, while inter alia cogitating on the ingredients of the offence under Section(s) 391/395 IPC, noted that for the offence under said provision to be established, mere presence of the accused, amongst the robbers is not enough and that the essence of the said provision, lied in the commission of offence by five or more persons 'conjointly'. As a corollary, the Hon'ble Court in unambiguous terms held that is during an incident, one or more persons, by their individual act commit robbery and that act is not a result of united, common or concerted action, all such persons cannot be held liable for the offence of dacoity. Apposite at this stage to reproduce the relevant extract(s) from the decision in Bhalkya Ambrushi Kale v. State of Maharashtra, (Supra.), as under;
"11. From the language of Section 391, it is clear that offence of robbery, when committed or attempted conjointly by 5 or more persons, all the persons are held liable for the offence of dacoity. The word 'conjointly' has an important significance in assessing liability of the persons accused of the SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 46 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:43:56 +0530 offence of dacoity. Mere presence of the accused amongst the robbers is not sufficient. The word 'conjointly' used in Section 391 manifestly refers to the united or concerted action of the persons participating in the offence. If during the certain incident one or more persons by their individual act commit robbery and that act is not a result of united or concerted action, it cannot be said that all the persons, who were involved in that incident had conjointly committed the offence of robbery. The persons, who may have actually committed the offence of robbery may be held guilty for their act. Accused persons may be held guilty for the offence of dacoity only if the prosecution proves that five or more persons acted conjointly to commit dacoity or in attempt to commit dacoity."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. Pertinent at this stage to further observe that this Court is further cognizant that for the offence of dacoity to be attracted against an accused, what is required to be considered is the involvement and commission of the offence of robbery by five persons or more and not whether five or more persons were tried. Ego, simply because some of the accused/accused persons, absconded and less than five persons came to be tried in the trial, it cannot be said that the offence under Sections 391/395 IPC is not made out, if other ingredients stand satisfied. In this regard, reference is made to the decision in Ganesan v. State of T.N., (2022) 15 SCC 634, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in an akin context, noted as under;
"34. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant-accused that no case is made out even for the offence under Section 391IPC and they cannot be punished under Section 395IPC as what is required to be proved is involvement of five or more persons conjointly in committing the robbery and in the present case only four persons are tried and the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of five or more persons. However, it is required to be noted that as such in the FIR there was a reference to five persons involved in committing the robbery. Even the charge-sheet was filed against five persons. However, as two accused absconded, the trial was SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 47 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:44:00 +0530 split and three accused came to be tried. One accused Benny came to be tried subsequently and one person is still absconding. Even there are concurrent findings recorded by all the courts below that five persons were involved in committing the offence of robbery. Merely because some of the accused absconded and less than five persons came to be tried in the trial, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 391 IPC punishable under Section 395 IPC is not made out. What is required to be considered is the involvement and commission of the offence of robbery by five persons or more and not whether five or more persons were tried. Once it is found on evidence that five or more persons conjointly committed the offence of robbery or attempted to commit the robbery a case would fall under Section 391 IPC and would fall within the definition of "dacoity". Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the accused can be convicted for the offence under Section 391IPC punishable under Section 395IPC."
(Emphasis supplied) APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
25. Therefore, being wary of the aforenoted legal principles, judicial dictates and the rival contentions of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as that of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, this Court would proceed with the determination of the merits of the instant case. In particular and outrightly to the effect as to, 'whether from the material placed on record, culpability under Section(s) 395/34 IPC can be attracted against the accused persons in the instant case?' Conspicuously, in order to deal with the said aspect, this Court deems it pertinent to incipiently note that the fulcrum of the prosecution's case is the testimony of the victim, namely, Anoop Kumar/PW-1. Undoubtedly, the prosecution has cited as many as twenty four witnesses in support of its case against the accused persons. However, admittedly, except the victim/PW-1, none of the said witnesses are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. In fact, even the complainant/PW-2/Ct. Rajbir Singh (admittedly) SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 48 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:44:03 +0530 did not witness the alleged occurrence, rather, participated in the proceedings from the stage of apprehension of the accused Umesh Kumar Yadav. Needless to mention, PW-2/Ct. Rajbir Singh affirmed during the course of his cross examination by avowing, "...It is correct that no incident took place in my presence or that I had informed police on the basis of narration of accused Umesh...". Ergo, at this stage, it becomes incumbent for this Court to deal with the law governing the appreciation/reliance on the testimony of a sole eyewitness. In this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to outrightly note that it cognizant of the settled law, persistently avowed6 by the superior courts in a catena of judicial decisions, that there is no bar/legal impediment in convicting a person on the testimony of a sole/single witness, if the version so put forth by such a witness is clear and reliable. Unquestionably, reason behind the same is that the evidence, 'has to be weighed and not counted'. Reference in this regard is made to the decision in Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2003) 11 SCC 367 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in unambiguous terms noted that court can and may act on the testimony of a sole/single witness, provided that such witness is wholly reliable. In other words, as per the Hon'ble Court, there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the testimony of a single witness, if the same is found to be reliable/worthy of credence. Apposite in the context of foregoing, to reproduce the relevant extract(s) from the said dictate, as under;
"9. Vadivelu Thevar case [AIR 1957 SC 614:
1957 Cri LJ 1000] was referred to with approval in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. [1995 SCC (Cri) 160: AIR 1994 SC 1251] This Court held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the 6 Kusti Mallaiah v. State of A.P., (2013) 12 SCC 680.
SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 49 of 68
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24
16:44:07
+0530
testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act"). But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time- honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise"
(Emphasis supplied)
26. Analogously, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, earlier in Sheelam Ramesh v. State of A.P., (1999) 8 SCC 369 , expressed similar sentimentalities, in the following terms;
"18. According to learned counsel for the accused appellants, though PW 3 has deposed that 10-15 persons were in the vicinity at the time of occurrence, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. There is nothing on evidence to show that there was any other eyewitness to the occurrence. Having examined all the eyewitnesses even if other persons present nearby were not examined, the evidence of the eyewitnesses cannot be discarded. Courts are concerned with quality and not with quantity of evidence and in a criminal trial, conviction can be based on the sole evidence of a witness if it inspires confidence."
(Emphasis supplied)
27. Quite manifestly, it is seen from above and reiterated that the law is now settled that there is no embargo in reaching the finding of guilt of an accused on the testimony of a sole eye witness. However, in order to reach such an inference, court(s) be satisfied that the testimony of such a witness, inspires confidence and that the witness is wholly reliable. In other words for a conviction of an accused to be such premised on the testimony of a sole witness, court(s) has to formulate a SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 50 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:44:10 +0530 conclusion that such testimony is 'sterling7' in nature, which can be relied upon, without any corroboration. Pertinent at this stage to further note that the term(s), 'sterling witness'/'sterling testimony' in criminal jurisprudence has been repeatedly declared by superior courts to mean a witness who is8, "worthy of credence, one who is reliable and truthful." Reference in this regard is further made to the decision in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, catalogued the quality of a 'sterling witness', under the following observations;
"22. ...In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co- relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the 7 Bhimapa Chandapa Hosamani & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 11 SCC 323.8
Kuriya v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433.
SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 51 of 68
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24
16:44:14
+0530
version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged..."
(Emphasis supplied)
28. Consequently, being wary of the aforenoted principles, when the material/evidence placed on record is rigorously evaluated, this Court unwaveringly reaches a conclusion that the testimony of the victim/PW-1/Anoop Kumar is far from being termed as 'sterling', in any manner, so as to form the sole basis of conviction of the accused persons. On the contrary, from a meticulous analysis of the testimony of PW-1, in conjunction with other material placed on record, it is noted that there are several significant/material irregularities, omissions and lacunae in the case put forth by the prosecution, benefit of which, in the considered opinion of this Court, must necessarily enure in favour of the accused persons. In this regard, it is outrightly noted that PW-1 inter alia deposed during the course of his examination-in-chief that on 02.03.2014, his son received a call on his mobile phone from the police post/PP Lal Quila and it was informed via said call that his/PW-1's battery rickshaw had been recovered. Correspondingly, it was deposed by PW-1 that he was called to Hauz Qazi chowk with one HC on the said day, who was sent to his/PW-1's house from PP Lal Quila. At the same time, it was avowed by PW-1 that in the morning of 02.03.2014, post receipt of the said telephonic call, he/PW-1 became nervous SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 52 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:44:17 +0530 and frightened and, consequently, went to his/PW-1's friend's house to consume liquor to reduce his nervousness. Further, as per PW-1, after returning to his house, PW-1's son and HC took him/PW-1 to Hauz Qazi chowk form where, he was taken to PP Lal Quila, where the police conducted the investigation proceedings. However, the said testimony is in utter variance with the deposition of other witnesses/police officials, including PW-2/Ct. Rajbir Singh, PW-5/HC Pawan Kumar, PW-8/Ct. Manoj and PW-22/IO/Insp. Amit Kumar, who nowhere deposed during the course of their respective testimonies that any Head Constable was, in fact, sent to the house of PW-1 to ensure his presence in the police post on 02.03.2014. On the contrary, all the said witnesses, consistently deposed that when they returned to the police post along with accused Umesh Kumar and rickshaw, the owner of battery rickshaw namely, Anoop Kumar/PW-1 was already present there and that he/PW-1 identified the said rickshaw as well as accused Umesh Kumar.
29. Correspondingly, nowhere during the course of his deposition, PW-2 deposed the name/identity of the concerned Head Constable, who had allegedly reached his home in the morning hours of 02.03.2014, to accompany him to the police post Lal Qila. Ergo, under such circumstances, the reasons for presence of the victim at the police post on 02.03.2014, are not beyond a certain degree of doubt in the instant case. At the same time, it is observed from a perusal of the deposition of PW-1/Anoop Kumar that he testified before this Court that in the police post, one person was shown to him, whose leg was fractured and after some time the police also brought three other persons, asking him to specify whether he could identify the said persons or not. Notably, during the course of his deposition, SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 53 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:44:21 +0530 PW-1 identified the said person, whose leg had allegedly been fractured as accused, Narender Kumar Yadav and the other three persons were identified as accused, Raghu Nath Yadav, who allegedly reached the spot of occurrence in a TSR from behind and took out the keys from the ignition of PW-1's battery rickshaw, whilst, the other two persons were identified by PW-1 as accused Pramod Kumar Yadav and Umesh Kumar Yadav, who had robbed PW-1's battery rickshaw along with co-accused and left the spot with the same. However, when the said extracts of PW-1's deposition is seen in concurrence with the deposition of other witnesses and documents placed on record, the contradiction/inconsistencies in the said testimonies gets further exemplified/manifest. In this regard, it is apposite to note that nowhere during the course of his deposition, PW-1 asserted that he had accompanied the police officials in the proceedings related to the arrest of co-accused, namely, Pramod Kumar Yadav, Narender Kumar Yadav and Raghu Nath Yadav or that he/PW-1 identified/pointed out at the said accused persons at the time of their respective arrest. On the contrary, as aforementioned, PW-1 merely asserted that the aforenoted accused persons were shown to him by the police officials at the police post, where he had identified them. However, in antagonism to PW-1's said proclamation, PW-22/IO/SI Amit Kumar proclaimed under his deposition that while accused Umesh Kumar Yadav was identified by PW-1 at the police post, however, PW-1 had accompanied him/PW-22 and accused Umesh Kumar Yadav, in the custody of HC Pawan and Ct. Manoj, to Doriwalan Gali, Karol Bagh behind Siddhipura police chowki, Delhi, where the accused persons, namely, Pramod, Narender and Raghunath were identified and arrested at the SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 54 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:44:25 +0530 behest of Umesh Kumar Yadav, as well as identified by PW-1/Anoop Kumar, simultaneously.
30. Markedly, another disconsolate feature in the instant case is that PW-1 did not explicitly depose regarding the role of the accused persons as well as failed to attribute any role or even specify about co-accused Jitender @ Jitu in his testimony, in tandem with case put forth by the prosecution. In this regard, it is reiterated that PW-1 identified accused Raghu Nath Yadav as the person who had reached the spot of incident in TSR from behind and took out the keys from the ignition of PW-1's battery rickshaw. Correspondingly, accused Pramod Kumar and Umesh Kumar were asserted by PW-1 to have robbed his battery rickshaw along with co-accused and left with the same from the spot. However, nowhere under his deposition, PW-1 asserted regarding the role of accused Narender Kumar Yadav. On the contrary, PW-1 merely asserted that when he reached the police post on 02.03.2014, he noted that one person, whose leg was fractured, was present in the custody of the police and the said person was identified by the PW-1 as accused Narender Kumar Yadav. Clearly, no specific role was ascribed/attributed to accused Narender Kumar Yadav by PW-1 in his deposition. Simultaneously, nowhere under his testimony, PW-1 avowed that he had identified accused/co-accused Jitender @ Jitu from his photograph in the police station, in contradistinction, to the assertion of PW-22, who inter alia proclaimed in his deposition as under;
"...In personal search of accused, namely, Raghunath @ Raghu, 5 photographs along with mobile phone and cash were recovered. Anoop Singh identified the accused, namely, Jitender @ Jitu in one of the aforesaid five photographs. I seized the aforesaid one photograph separately vide seizure memo Ex. PW22/A. It bears my signature at point SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 55 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:44:28 +0530 'A'. The said photograph was pasted on a paper and obtained signatures of the witness. The said photograph is Ex. PW22/B. It bears my signature at point 'A'..."
(Emphasis supplied)
31. Significantly, in his testimony, PW-1/Anoop Kumar went ahead to the extent of deposing that due to lapse of time, he was unable to elaborate the exact role of each of the accused persons and further, that he was confused as to whose leg was fractured and who was apprehended by the IO. Needless to reiterate, not only did PW-1 did not depose regarding him identifying co-accused Jitender @ Jitu from his photograph at the police post or otherwise, subsequent to apprehension of accused, Raghu Nath and alleged recovery of five photographs from said accused, as deposed by PW-22. In fact, there is no mention of him/PW-1's even seeing/or being shown any such photograph (Ex. PW22/B) by the IO or concerned police officials at any point in time during the course of investigation, in the deposition of PW-1. However, notwithstanding the same, the said witness/PW-1 was neither cross-examined by/on behalf of the State nor any leading question posed to him so as to ascertain the exact role and identity of the accused persons or that pertaining to the involvement of accused Jitender @ Jitu in the instant case, at any point in time during PW-1's deposition. Pertinent to further note in respect of the foregoing that it is not the case of the prosecution that accused Narender Kumar Yadav sustained any injury at any point in time during or subsequent to the commission of the alleged incident. On the contrary, it has been consistent stand of the prosecution, including that of PW-2/Ct. Rajbir Singh that at the time of apprehension of accused Umesh Kumar Yadav, he had sustained injury, after colliding with a TSR SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 56 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:44:32 +0530 plying on the road. However, as aforenoted, PW-1 asserted in his testimony that he had seen accused Narender Kumar Yadav in the police post on 02.03.2014, in a state of fractured leg. Notwithstanding the same, prosecution has failed to explain/elucidate on the said contradiction in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, except to assert that PW-1 could not depose the correct roles of the accused persons due to lapse of time in his deposition.
32. Ergo, under the foregoing circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, it was quite necessary for the prosecution to have arranged for a formal/proper Test Identification Parade/TIP proceeding of the accused persons, to lend credence to the deposition/identification of the accused persons in Court for the first time. However, it is not even forthcoming under the deposition of PW-1 or any of the other prosecution witnesses, including PW-22 that he/PW-1 was ever asked to participate in formal TIP proceedings of the accused persons, especially, when it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused persons and the victim/PW-1/Anoop Kumar were acquainted or familiar with each other, at any point in time, prior to the alleged date of occurrence. Obviously, under such circumstances, such identification of the accused persons as the alleged perpetrator of offence by the victim/PW-1/Anoop Kumar, bereft of proper/formal TIP proceedings, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not beyond a pale of doubt. In fact, in this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to note that it is trite law that mere identification of an accused in the police station or in the Court for the first time, bereft of proper Test Identification parade/TIP proceedings, especially when the victim and the SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 57 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2025.09.24
16:44:35
+0530
accused are strangers9, cannot be considered free from doubt. Reference in this regard, is made to the decision in Jafar v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC Online SC 310, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in an akin situation, noted as under;
"8. Anil Kumar (PW-8), who is the Investigating Officer (IO), has also admitted that PW-1 identified the accused persons by seeing them at the police station. He has further admitted that no identification parade was conducted. As such, it can be seen that the identification of the appellant herein by PW-1 is quite doubtful as no identification parade has been conducted. PW-1 clearly states that he has identified the accused persons since the police had shown him those two people.
9. In the absence of proper identification parade being conducted, the identification for the first time in the Court cannot be said to be free from doubt. We find that the other circumstance that the Courts relied for resting the order of conviction is with regard to the recovery of an iron rod. An iron rod is an article which could be found anywhere. It is not the case of the prosecution that any stolen article was recovered from the appellant herein..."
(Emphasis supplied)
33. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkhansingh v. State of M.P., (2003) 5 SCC 746 , while accentuating the significance of TIP proceedings vis-à-vis, in dock identification, for the first time by a victim/complainant/witness, remarked as under;
"7. It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court. Apart from the clear provisions of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that 9 Liyakat Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2025 SCC Online HP 2125.
SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 58 of 68
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24
16:44:39
+0530
evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges the investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration...
*** *** ***
10. It is no doubt true that much evidentiary value cannot be attached to the identification of the accused in court where identifying witness is a total stranger who had just a fleeting glimpse of the person identified or who had no particular reason to remember the person concerned, if the identification is made for the first time in court..."
(Emphasis supplied)
34. Despondently, it is further observed from the material placed on record that there are several other lacunae/omissions in the case of the prosecution. In this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to note that PW-1/Anoop Kumar further deposed during the course of his deposition that at the time of occurrence, some TSR reached at the spot, however, on seeing him/PW-1 being beaten, the said driver left from the spot, out of fear. Notably, PW-2/Ct. Rajbir Singh, though, also asserted in his testimony that as he and Ct. Mukesh Meena had reached at flyover loop of Geeta Colony at around 11:40 p.m., on SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 59 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:44:43 +0530 01.03.2014, one TSR driver approached them and informed that at the beginning of flyover heading towards Shanti Van from Geeta Colony, four-five persons had snatched battery rikshaw from its driver, after giving beating to him and that the said persons had proceeded towards Raj Ghat Power House, New Ring Road. However, despite such assertion admittedly neither the particulars of the said TSR or that of its driver who had allegedly given the police officials, information regarding the said information noted nor the said TSR driver joined in the investigation of the present case. In fact, even PW-1 affirmed during the course of his cross examination that he did not note down the number of the other TSR driver from whom he sought help, while he was being beaten up by the assailants. Similarly, PW-2 also affirmed during the course of his cross-examination by/at the behest of the accused persons that the details of the TSR driver, who informed about the incident were not recorded by him, nor the number of his TSR noted. Needless to further mention that once PW-1 proclaimed that the said unknown TSR driver left the spot on seeing him being beaten, the factum of said TSR driver, informing PW-2 of the accused persons fleeing with a battery rickshaw towards Raj Ghat Power House, New Ring Road, becomes quite suspicious. Correspondingly, since it is not forthcoming under the examination-in-chief of PW-2 as to whether any identification mark of either the robbed TSR or that of the accused persons was informed to him/PW-2 and/or Ct.
Mukesh by such unknown TSR driver, the apprehension of the accused Umesh Kumar by the said police officials or that of PW-1's TSR from the possession of the said accused, in the considered opinion of this Court, not beyond a pale of doubt in the instant case. Needless to mention that PW-2 confirmed to the SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 60 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:44:46 +0530 contrary, under his cross-examination that the said TSR driver had not disclosed any physical description of the said four-five boys/persons. Concomitantly, PW-1 proclaimed under his deposition that 10-15 minutes after the alleged incident, one Champion vehicle reached at the spot and upon his/PW-1's request, driver of the said Champion vehicle and he/PW-1 proceeded in search of the accused persons, however, in vain. Further, as aforenoted, PW-1 avowed that at his request, the said Champion driver dropped him/PW-1 at Jain Mandir Chandani Chowk from where he/PW-1 made a call to his house from the mobile phone of some passer-by. However, despite such assertion of PW-1, neither the driver of said Champion driver nor such passer-by was joined in the investigation of the present case. In fact, from the material placed on record, even the effort of the concerned police officials/IO to trace out the said Champion driver or passer-by appear to be grossly wanting.
35. Here, it is further pertinent to note that PW-1 also asserted under his examination-in-chief that he had telephonically informed his son of the incident, who reached at Jain Mandir and took him to his house and subsequently, PW-1's son and his friend went in search of PW-1's rickshaw, however, all in vain. Correspondingly, as aforenoted, PW-1 asserted that on 02.03.2014, his/PW-1's son received a call on his mobile phone from PP Lal Quila asking him to reach at Hauz Qazi chowk and that he/PW-1 accompanied with his son and one HC, who was sent from PP Lal Quila to Hauz Qazi chowk, from where he/PW-1 was taken to the said police post. However, despite such avowal of PW-1, the concerned police officials, did not even bother to join PW-1's son in the investigation proceedings. Apposite to further note that PW-2 specifically proclaimed under SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 61 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:44:53 +0530 his examination in chief that on seeing the PCR van, two boys, who were proceeding towards Rajghat flyover fled away from the said spot, leaving the rickshaw there and that, "...Out of those two boys, one boy collided with TSR and sustained injuries while other managed to flee from there..." . At the same time, PW-2 proclaimed under his said deposition that when he returned to the spot where the said rickshaw was abandoned by the aforesaid two boys along with SI Amit Kumar and investigated further, "...it was also disclosed by nearby scrap dealer that one person had also been taken to the hospital by the PCR as he had fallen down from the flyover...". However, despite such assertion, PW-2 admitted during the course of his cross- examination that the particulars of the TSR with which, one of the two boys had collided was not recorded.
36. Concomitantly, though, PW-2 avowed under his cross examination that IO/SI Amit Kumar had recorded the statement of the scrap dealers, who had informed about the falling of one boy from the flyover in his/PW-2's presence, however, PW-2 expressed inability to recall the names and addressed of the said scrap dealer. However, it is pertinent to note that nowhere during the course of deposition, PW-22/IO/SI Amit Kumar deposed of having accompanied PW-2 to any scrap dealers or having made any enquiry from them regarding co-
accused Jitender @ Jitu or of recording their statement. On the contrary, PW-22 specifically affirmed during the course of his cross-examination by/at the behest of the accused persons that he had not conducted investigation pertaining to accused Jitender Singh, except getting his postmortem examination conducted. Needless to mention that none of the said scrap dealers were joined in the investigation or adduced as witnesses before this SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 62 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:44:57 +0530 Court.
37. Remarkably, another unnerving aspect forthcoming from a scrupulous analysis of the material placed on record is that, though, it is the case of the prosecution that at the instance of the accused persons, the TSR, allegedly deployed by them at the time of the commission of alleged incident was recovered, however, the prosecution has neither been able to pin-down the ownership of such recovered TSR on the accused, nor been able to prove its said deployment beyond reasonable doubt in the instant case. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that PW-22/IO/SI Amit Kumar, during the course of his deposition asserted that accused, Raghunath Yadav led the police team to an autorickshaw bearing no. DL-1RH-1602, allegedly used in the recovery and which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/N. However, in variance, PW-5/HC Pawan Kumar proclaimed that the said TSR was recovered at the instance of accused Umesh Kumar. Pertinent to further note that nowhere during the course of deposition of PW-1/Anoop Kumar, any reference made regarding the recovery of the said TSR either in his presence, nor the said TSR ever put to PW-1 during the course of his deposition for identification. Needless to mention that PW-1 did not even depose of the identification/registration number of TSR, allegedly deployed by the accused persons at the time of commission of the alleged incident or the one in which accused, Raghu Nath is alleged to have reached the spot and subsequently, fled along with two of the co-accused persons. At the same time, though, the prosecution endeavored to ascribe the ownership of said TSR on accused Raghu Nath Yadav, by adducing PW-11/Om Prakash; PW-15/Ms. Yashoda; and PW-16/Sh. Manmohan, however, in the considered opinion of this Court, miserably failed SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 63 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.09.24 16:45:00 +0530 even in the said attempt. In this regard, though, PW-11 asserted and proved the records as per which the said TSR was found registered in the name of PW-15/Smt. Yashoda Devi, however, PW-15 proclaimed under her testimony that though the said TSR remained registered in her name, however, possession thereof remained with PW-16/Manmohan @ Mohan, who used to ply the same. Pertinently, as per PW-16, in the year, 2013, he/PW-16 had sole the said auto-rickshaw to Raghunath for Rs. 65,000/-
(Rupees Sixty Five Thousand only). However, as per PW-16, he had not signed documents for transfer of the auto-rickshaw in the name of Raghunath, as the entire consideration was not paid by Raghunath to him/PW-16. Clearly, except of such oral assertion, the prosecution has failed to prove the ownership or possession of the said TSR to accused Raghunath and as aforenoted, even failed to prove its alleged deployment in the commission of the alleged incident, beyond reasonable doubt, in the instant case.
38. Ergo, when the aforenoted discrepancies, omissions, contradictions and material improvements in the testimonies of various witnesses, including that of the victim/PW-1 are painstakingly analyzed, the only conclusion which this Court, unerringly reach in the instant case is that the conviction of the accused persons cannot be premised on the sole testimony of the complainant/PW-1 in the instant case. Needless to reiterate that not only has the deposition of PW-1 been replete with material variations/inconsistencies and omissions, rather, as aforenoted, PW-1 has even failed to properly attribute specific roles to the accused, properly identify the accused persons as well as omitted to even attribute any role qua co-accused Jitender @ Jitu, in consonance with the case of the prosecution. Rather, from an unflagging appreciation of all the material on record, the only SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 64 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:45:04 +0530 conclusion, which this Court can reasonably arrive at is that the case of the prosecution is build up on the disclosure statement of accused Umesh Kumar Yadav, including the role of the co- accused persons/all the accused persons as well as their respective roles in the commission of alleged incident, which cannot form the basis of conviction of the accused persons. Germane for the present purpose(s) to further observe at this stage that this Court is cognizant of the settled law 10 that a disclosure statement alone, without any supporting evidence, is insufficient to secure a conviction, as it cannot establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC Online SC 984, wherein the Hon'ble Court in an akin context, remarked as under;
"22. A doubt looms: can disclosure statements per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed adequate to secure a conviction? We find it implausible. Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, in our opinion, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt."
(Emphasis supplied)
39. Consequently, in light of the foregoing discussion, this Court unambiguously reaches a conclusion that the testimony of PW-1/victim is insufficient and unworthy of credence, so as to be sufficient in itself to bring home the charges/allegations levelled against the accused persons in the instant case. Needless to reiterate that not only are there several material variations in the deposition of the victim/PW-1 vis-à-vis deposition of other prosecution witnesses, rather, from the entire 10 Lalhruaitea v. State of Mizoram, 2025 SCC Online Gau 2467.
SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 65 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.09.24 16:45:08 +0530
material placed on record, the prosecution has failed to ascribe the involvement as well as role of the accused persons in the commission of offence/charges levelled against them, beyond reasonable doubt. Needless to reiterate that the prosecution has produced no other witness to the alleged incident and as aforenoted, several other persons/individuals, allegedly present at the time of commission of incident, who could have lend credence to the version of the prosecution, including the TSR driver who allegedly witnessed the incident; driver of Champion, who assisted PW-1, after the alleged incident; PW-1's son; scrap dealers, who alleged informed the concerned police officials of Jitender @ Jitu's fall from flyover; and TSR driver, who collided with accused Umesh have neither been joined in investigation nor adduced as prosecution witnesses. Needless at this stage to further note that, though, PW-1 asserted that one of the accused persosn made a call to his accomplice to reach at the spot of occurrence, however, the prosecution/concerned IO did not even bother to place and/or prove the CDRs/Call Detail Records of any of the accused persons to demonstrate their presence at the time of alleged occurrence or their correspondence with each other either prior, during or subsequent to the alleged occurrence. Concomitantly, prosecution has even failed to ascribe ownership of alleged recovered TSR bearing registration no. DL-1RH-1602 to any of the accused persons or even to accused Raghunath Yadav or even to prove its deployment at the time of alleged occurrence, even under the deposition of PW-1/victim. CONCLUSION:
40. Conclusively, in light of the foregoing, it is reiterated that from the material placed on record and arguments addressed on behalf of the State as well as that on behalf of the SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 66 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:45:12 +0530 accused persons, it is reiterated that in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case 'beyond reasonable doubt' against the accused persons, namely, Umesh Kumar Yadav, Pramod Kumar Yadav, Narender Kumar Yadav and Raghu Nath Yadav (and as aforenoted, the role as well as involvement of co-accused Jitender @ Jitu is not even forthcoming from any evidence brought forth). On the contrary, in light of the various contradictions, lacunae, and material omissions, as hereinunder observed, benefit of doubt in the considered opinion of this Court, must necessarily accrue in favour of the accused persons. Needless to mention at this stage that it is trite law11 that the prosecution has to prove its case/charge against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt and that an accused is considered innocent, until it is established otherwise. It is equally a settled law12 that in case where two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused and the other adversely against it, the view favouring the accused must be accepted.
41. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, accused persons, namely, Umesh Kumar Yadav, Pramod Kumar Yadav, Narender Kumar Yadav and Raghu Nath Yadav are acquitted of the charges/allegations levelled against them for the offence(s) under Sections 395/34 IPC. Needless to mention that the co- accused, namely, Jitender @ Jitu had already left for heavenly abode on 05.03.2014. Consequently, the accused persons, namely, Umesh Kumar Yadav, Pramod Kumar Yadav, Narender Kumar Yadav and Raghu Nath Yadav are admitted to bail on the said accused persons', each, furnishing a personal bond in the 11 Meena v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 5 SCC 21.
12Raghunath v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 398, Dhan Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1980) 1 SCC 605; and State of U.P. v. Nandu Vishwakarma, (2009) 14 SCC 501.
SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 67 of 68 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.09.24 16:45:15 +0530
sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) along with one surety of the like amount (each), as per the provisions under Section 437A Cr.P.C./Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/BNSS. Further, as requested, the bail bond be furnished by the accused persons within a period of one week from the date of this judgment.
42. File of the present case be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.09.24 16:45:21 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal) on 24.09.2025. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi SC No. 28047/2016 State v. Umesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 68 of 68